[Malaclypse]

hmmm, somehow I recall replying to this before - something in my contribution must have been unacceptable to our lords and masters so...

OK, I agree we are moving forward, because we must move forward - there are no other options. There's no going back to the caves, no matter how much I might enjoy that.

And what you're talking about is slavery, which has not been eradicated, by any means. There are millions of slaves on Earth right now - link: http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-26513804

Moving forward does not necessarily equate to becoming better

[Calistan]

A friend of mine recommended a book in this subject. I have not read it myself yet, but it surely looks interesting. http://en.wikipedia....s_of_Our_Nature

[BellaGrace]

So... I'm nearly done with Bonehunters now and that book has a ton of moralizing/philosophizing, but it isn't annoying me. I guess what bothered me in MT wasn't that Erikson was a soap box about something, but that it was always on the same topic... over and over - which is what made it preachy - no variety in the topics covered.

[Tru]

It could be that Erickson sees his writing of fiction as a platform to further his ideas about various topics. I find it a waste of time since most ppl who read his books have already made up their minds on all of these issues and will simply agree or disagree accordingly. That said, scifi/fantasy has always been a platform for high minded folk to share their opinions with reckless abandon. We, the readers, are just lucky there is a piece of fiction happening at the same time.

On the subject of the downfall of mankind, etc..it's always very easy to make predictions about things which the predictor will never live to see. No one can prove them wrong or right. In a way it is the cowards way out of addressing issues that we are currently living through..."If we continue down this path we are going to end up like...." How about we work on the here and now and not the 'what if's'.

This post has been edited by Tru: 13 November 2014 - 10:49 PM

[worry]

You can't work on the here and now without addressing the what if's. Here's a cautionary tale on that very subject:

[Gorefest]

Tru, on 13 November 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

It could be that Erickson sees his writing of fiction as a platform to further his ideas about various topics. I find it a waste of time since most ppl who read his books have already made up their minds on all of these issues and will simply agree or disagree accordingly.

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that assumption. You mean you feel you have a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world, ever, and nothing that anybody says will ever give you a new point of view or make you change your mind? You don't have a to agree (or disagree, for that matter) with everything Erikson writes, but surely any alternative viewpoint (and, to Erikson's credit, he gives many perspectives) is always food for thought?

[Tru]

Gorefest, on 14 November 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Tru, on 13 November 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

It could be that Erickson sees his writing of fiction as a platform to further his ideas about various topics. I find it a waste of time since most ppl who read his books have already made up their minds on all of these issues and will simply agree or disagree accordingly.

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that assumption. You mean you feel you have a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world, ever, and nothing that anybody says will ever give you a new point of view or make you change your mind? You don't have a to agree (or disagree, for that matter) with everything Erikson writes, but surely any alternative viewpoint (and, to Erikson's credit, he gives many perspectives) is always food for thought?

Most of us make up our minds about the majority of issues in which we care or know about by the time we exit College, which then makes up the majority of our lives. This is a fact btw...generally speaking, we do not suddenly start believing something else..ever. We can develop a more open mind, or closed mind over time, but rarely do we form completely different views...and in particular, for those of us that do, and are swayed by a good argument, etc...we will rarely do it from the imput of a fiction writer, no offense to fiction writers. We generally are influenced by those who we admire and look up too in the particular area of expertise in question. I realize that many of us here look up to and admire Mr. Erickson, as do I when it comes to what I know he is good at...writing novels, and possibly Archaeology, though I am unfamiliar with his work in that field. However, I do not ask a plumber (that I did not know personally, and well) for advice on marriage, or building telescopes, even if that plumber might have a great marriage and homemade telescopes littering his garage. Rather than simply being a contrarian, lets look at the spirit and context of what I communicated. What you see as my "assumption" is actually a fact that can be researched. (I'm sort of a research junkie, since it also happens to be part of my job description.) I also said "most people," not all. Obviously I do not have "a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world....etc..." That's absurd, and I think it's easy to assume that I do not, without needing to ask for clarification. I also think that "food for thought" is what I am after when I read non-fiction...no offense, but I don't buy fiction for this purpose, though some might do just that, and that is fine with me. That said, what was the topic again? Oh yes..I should have just answered the damn question: No, I don't find MT too preachy. :-P

RE: Worries reply...I agree totally. I probably wasn't clear, or too confusing, or more likely just too confused myself. I wasn't really talking about how we as people should or should not learn from our past mistakes, and figure out how we can avoid future ones..I was addressing the issue of people making bold claims about how the future, beyond their own lives, will look when they won't ever have to account for those statements. It's all very convenient you see, to come off as an expert on something you will never have to own up too.

[Andorion]

Tru, on 15 November 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 14 November 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Tru, on 13 November 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

It could be that Erickson sees his writing of fiction as a platform to further his ideas about various topics. I find it a waste of time since most ppl who read his books have already made up their minds on all of these issues and will simply agree or disagree accordingly.

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that assumption. You mean you feel you have a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world, ever, and nothing that anybody says will ever give you a new point of view or make you change your mind? You don't have a to agree (or disagree, for that matter) with everything Erikson writes, but surely any alternative viewpoint (and, to Erikson's credit, he gives many perspectives) is always food for thought?

Most of us make up our minds about the majority of issues in which we care or know about by the time we exit College, which then makes up the majority of our lives. This is a fact btw...generally speaking, we do not suddenly start believing something else..ever. We can develop a more open mind, or closed mind over time, but rarely do we form completely different views...and in particular, for those of us that do, and are swayed by a good argument, etc...we will rarely do it from the imput of a fiction writer, no offense to fiction writers. We generally are influenced by those who we admire and look up too in the particular area of expertise in question. I realize that many of us here look up to and admire Mr. Erickson, as do I when it comes to what I know he is good at...writing novels, and possibly Archaeology, though I am unfamiliar with his work in that field. However, I do not ask a plumber (that I did not know personally, and well) for advice on marriage, or building telescopes, even if that plumber might have a great marriage and homemade telescopes littering his garage. Rather than simply being a contrarian, lets look at the spirit and context of what I communicated. What you see as my "assumption" is actually a fact that can be researched. (I'm sort of a research junkie, since it also happens to be part of my job description.) I also said "most people," not all. Obviously I do not have "a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world....etc..." That's absurd, and I think it's easy to assume that I do not, without needing to ask for clarification. I also think that "food for thought" is what I am after when I read non-fiction...no offense, but I don't buy fiction for this purpose, though some might do just that, and that is fine with me. That said, what was the topic again? Oh yes..I should have just answered the damn question: No, I don't find MT too preachy. :-P

RE: Worries reply...I agree totally. I probably wasn't clear, or too confusing, or more likely just too confused myself. I wasn't really talking about how we as people should or should not learn from our past mistakes, and figure out how we can avoid future ones..I was addressing the issue of people making bold claims about how the future, beyond their own lives, will look when they won't ever have to account for those statements. It's all very convenient you see, to come off as an expert on something you will never have to own up too.

What you may need to consider though is that SE is not just writing fiction. Theres a heavy dose of anthropology and academic theory thrown in. Sometime back, probably on SEs website, I remember reading an essay by him on the meaning of Karsa Orlong (because that character has generated a lot of controversy) and that essay drew on a number of philosophical and anthropological sources. Just because SE chooses to write in the artistic fom of fantasy fiction does not mean that academic thought does not enter, or does not have a place in the creative process. In fact he is very good at explainging couple of rather chunky academic concepts through his writing. What you may think of as ideology, or personal opinion may often be some very sophisticated critique woven into the Malazan world. To me this is always what had made this series a cut above the rest. It is far richer than all of the other books we read.

Here's a link to that essay:

The Problem of Karsa Orlong

[Tru]

Andorion, on 16 November 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

Tru, on 15 November 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 14 November 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Tru, on 13 November 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

It could be that Erickson sees his writing of fiction as a platform to further his ideas about various topics. I find it a waste of time since most ppl who read his books have already made up their minds on all of these issues and will simply agree or disagree accordingly.

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that assumption. You mean you feel you have a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world, ever, and nothing that anybody says will ever give you a new point of view or make you change your mind? You don't have a to agree (or disagree, for that matter) with everything Erikson writes, but surely any alternative viewpoint (and, to Erikson's credit, he gives many perspectives) is always food for thought?

Most of us make up our minds about the majority of issues in which we care or know about by the time we exit College, which then makes up the majority of our lives. This is a fact btw...generally speaking, we do not suddenly start believing something else..ever. We can develop a more open mind, or closed mind over time, but rarely do we form completely different views...and in particular, for those of us that do, and are swayed by a good argument, etc...we will rarely do it from the imput of a fiction writer, no offense to fiction writers. We generally are influenced by those who we admire and look up too in the particular area of expertise in question. I realize that many of us here look up to and admire Mr. Erickson, as do I when it comes to what I know he is good at...writing novels, and possibly Archaeology, though I am unfamiliar with his work in that field. However, I do not ask a plumber (that I did not know personally, and well) for advice on marriage, or building telescopes, even if that plumber might have a great marriage and homemade telescopes littering his garage. Rather than simply being a contrarian, lets look at the spirit and context of what I communicated. What you see as my "assumption" is actually a fact that can be researched. (I'm sort of a research junkie, since it also happens to be part of my job description.) I also said "most people," not all. Obviously I do not have "a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world....etc..." That's absurd, and I think it's easy to assume that I do not, without needing to ask for clarification. I also think that "food for thought" is what I am after when I read non-fiction...no offense, but I don't buy fiction for this purpose, though some might do just that, and that is fine with me. That said, what was the topic again? Oh yes..I should have just answered the damn question: No, I don't find MT too preachy. :-P

RE: Worries reply...I agree totally. I probably wasn't clear, or too confusing, or more likely just too confused myself. I wasn't really talking about how we as people should or should not learn from our past mistakes, and figure out how we can avoid future ones..I was addressing the issue of people making bold claims about how the future, beyond their own lives, will look when they won't ever have to account for those statements. It's all very convenient you see, to come off as an expert on something you will never have to own up too.

What you may need to consider though is that SE is not just writing fiction. Theres a heavy dose of anthropology and academic theory thrown in. Sometime back, probably on SEs website, I remember reading an essay by him on the meaning of Karsa Orlong (because that character has generated a lot of controversy) and that essay drew on a number of philosophical and anthropological sources. Just because SE chooses to write in the artistic fom of fantasy fiction does not mean that academic thought does not enter, or does not have a place in the creative process. In fact he is very good at explainging couple of rather chunky academic concepts through his writing. What you may think of as ideology, or personal opinion may often be some very sophisticated critique woven into the Malazan world. To me this is always what had made this series a cut above the rest. It is far richer than all of the other books we read.

Here's a link to that essay:

The Problem of Karsa Orlong

That's pretty cool actually, and thanks for educating me on that. To the casual reader who does not really follow the the author beyond the books he/she has read from said author, there is no way to knowing this. And I think I also credited Erickson with a knowledge of Archaeology in my post instead of Anthropology, lol. I'd read somewhere of his career prior to becoming a successful author and mixed the two up.

Oh, and thanks for the link!

This post has been edited by Tru: 16 November 2014 - 02:00 AM

[Andorion]

Tru, on 16 November 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:

Andorion, on 16 November 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

Tru, on 15 November 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 14 November 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Tru, on 13 November 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

It could be that Erickson sees his writing of fiction as a platform to further his ideas about various topics. I find it a waste of time since most ppl who read his books have already made up their minds on all of these issues and will simply agree or disagree accordingly.

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that assumption. You mean you feel you have a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world, ever, and nothing that anybody says will ever give you a new point of view or make you change your mind? You don't have a to agree (or disagree, for that matter) with everything Erikson writes, but surely any alternative viewpoint (and, to Erikson's credit, he gives many perspectives) is always food for thought?

Most of us make up our minds about the majority of issues in which we care or know about by the time we exit College, which then makes up the majority of our lives. This is a fact btw...generally speaking, we do not suddenly start believing something else..ever. We can develop a more open mind, or closed mind over time, but rarely do we form completely different views...and in particular, for those of us that do, and are swayed by a good argument, etc...we will rarely do it from the imput of a fiction writer, no offense to fiction writers. We generally are influenced by those who we admire and look up too in the particular area of expertise in question. I realize that many of us here look up to and admire Mr. Erickson, as do I when it comes to what I know he is good at...writing novels, and possibly Archaeology, though I am unfamiliar with his work in that field. However, I do not ask a plumber (that I did not know personally, and well) for advice on marriage, or building telescopes, even if that plumber might have a great marriage and homemade telescopes littering his garage. Rather than simply being a contrarian, lets look at the spirit and context of what I communicated. What you see as my "assumption" is actually a fact that can be researched. (I'm sort of a research junkie, since it also happens to be part of my job description.) I also said "most people," not all. Obviously I do not have "a set answer or opinion to every issue in the world....etc..." That's absurd, and I think it's easy to assume that I do not, without needing to ask for clarification. I also think that "food for thought" is what I am after when I read non-fiction...no offense, but I don't buy fiction for this purpose, though some might do just that, and that is fine with me. That said, what was the topic again? Oh yes..I should have just answered the damn question: No, I don't find MT too preachy. :-P

RE: Worries reply...I agree totally. I probably wasn't clear, or too confusing, or more likely just too confused myself. I wasn't really talking about how we as people should or should not learn from our past mistakes, and figure out how we can avoid future ones..I was addressing the issue of people making bold claims about how the future, beyond their own lives, will look when they won't ever have to account for those statements. It's all very convenient you see, to come off as an expert on something you will never have to own up too.

What you may need to consider though is that SE is not just writing fiction. Theres a heavy dose of anthropology and academic theory thrown in. Sometime back, probably on SEs website, I remember reading an essay by him on the meaning of Karsa Orlong (because that character has generated a lot of controversy) and that essay drew on a number of philosophical and anthropological sources. Just because SE chooses to write in the artistic fom of fantasy fiction does not mean that academic thought does not enter, or does not have a place in the creative process. In fact he is very good at explainging couple of rather chunky academic concepts through his writing. What you may think of as ideology, or personal opinion may often be some very sophisticated critique woven into the Malazan world. To me this is always what had made this series a cut above the rest. It is far richer than all of the other books we read.

Here's a link to that essay:

The Problem of Karsa Orlong

That's pretty cool actually, and thanks for educating me on that. To the casual reader who does not really follow the the author beyond the books he/she has read from said author, there is no way to knowing this. And I think I also credited Erickson with a knowledge of Archaeology in my post instead of Anthropology, lol. I'd read somewhere of his career prior to becoming a successful author and mixed the two up.

Oh, and thanks for the link!

Oh he is also an archaeologist. In fact sometime back he was on a dig in Mongolia, if I am not wrong. Dont remember the link though. In fact you can see his archaeology skills coming through when he describes old cultures, the gradual environmental erosion and destruction caused by civilisations etc. Theres a bit of archaeology in RG, as you will see when you get to that book.

[Kanese S's]

Gothos, on 08 October 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

BellaGrace, on 08 October 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'm on a first read of this series and just finished MT. The previous books all had a bit of "preachiness" and soap-box moralizing in them, but not so much that it bugged me or seemed out of place. However, with this book, I feel like I was beat over the head with it at every turn. To me it began to border on the absurd, it felt like every other page was Erikson's views on war, capitalism, socialism, greed, poverty etc. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his opinions - I'm only saying that it felt very heavy handed in this book (way more than any of the others up to this point). I was just wondering if anyone else felt that way. This was the first book where I found myself skipping paragraphs because they were entirely internal monologues of repetitive philosophizing.

Anyway - just my opinion. I really do love the series and have given all the previous books 5/5 stars. This one gets a 4.5/5 from me for the above mentioned reason and also because it took me FOREVER to get through the first 150 or so pages and also because

Spoiler

I dislike the plot device of using Errant as a means for stupid things to happen in the plot, like Brys drinking poison.

.

Dislike internal monologue? Oh my, you're in for a treat in the next 5 books...
The moralizing was pretty obvious in MT, true enough, but I still can't shake the feeling that there's a connection between your view here and your location...

XD for once we agree, Gothos.

[Herrick The Younger]

I didn't find this book to be preachy but admittedly, I'm not the most perceptive when it comes to these things...unless it's extremely blatant like in Atlas Shrugged.