[Glass Desert]

Really, really frustated with this. Reaper's Gale was bad enough. but TtH takes it to new extremes.

Having completed about three-fourths of the book, its hard to figure out the reasons for such lack of editing whatsoever. If I wanted philosophy I'd read philosophy. People around here seem to point towards a change in writing style or whatever, but its way more than that. There's a noticeable drop in quality, and it feels like the author is just filling pages, or just can't make the time and the effort to revise and improve, so instead we get hundreds of pages of bloody nothing.

This forum hasn't struck me as tolerant of negative views, but fuck that.

I was so excited about halfway through the series, but its all been downhill from there. So much wasted potential. Granted, I'll still enjoy the last quater of the book (and next two), but this slogfest throught the first 18 chapters is not worth it. This book should be half the size it is, and first three sections could just as easily have been one. Sure, there's a smaller word count, but so what?

In conclusion, I don't think I'll be picking up Kharkanas after this.

Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Glass Desert: 22 December 2016 - 02:53 AM

[Aptorian]

 Glass Desert, on 22 December 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

This forum hasn't struck me as tolerant of negative views, but fuck that.

Not at all. I've been a pretty vocal critic of both Erikson's and Esslemont's writing for the past at least 6 years now. It's all about the way you present your opinion and how constructive you are. Nobody is going to want to hear some bum come in off the street and throw garbage at the author the rest of the forum has an appreciation for.

However if you introduce a little flair and charm you can usually win people over. Like that time I got all members of the forum past and present to agree that the Transformers films are cinematic masterpieces (It really happened. Why don't you believe me?).

 Glass Desert, on 22 December 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

In conclusion, I don't think I'll be picking up Kharkanas after this.
Thoughts?[/size][/font]

The above aside, you're echoing my own feeling around the time I read Reapers Gale and Toll the Hounds.

I thought Reaper's Gale gave us blue balls because it pulled its punches in Lether and in TTH it just took the book way, way too long to get to the final convergence. Mind you, since you say you still have 1/4 of the book back, you're about to run into the books payoff. The last 200 pages of TTH are pretty spectacular.

But yeah, from TTH and forward the books become increasingly more philosophic and introspective and the stories (in my opinion) seem to lose the tightly knit world building and intrigue that made the first 5 books so great. I think Erikson became a better writer, TTH is very well written, but at some point the meta narrative blocked out the rule of cool.

You're not going to like where the rest of the books go. Kharkanas and Fall of Light are like Toll the Hounds on steroids.

On the other hand, Esslemonts latest book Dancer's Lament was a surprisingly good book. So you could go read that if you like.

This post has been edited by Apt: 22 December 2016 - 12:10 PM

[Avatar]

I consider myself critical on some elements of SE's writing, and the philosophy (as people tend to call it) is one of them. I didn't enjoy TTH the first time. I finished it for the second time last week, and I have to admit: as a whole, this book is very good. I can only advise you to finish the whole series, and then, when you feel ready for it: reread.

[Avatar]

And yes, I agree that most of the books would be better if they were shorter. Not because fantasy literature shouldn't be long. But I do think that providing so much room for characters thinking about how pointless their lifes are, and how pointless and unfair the world is, doesn't contribute to the strength of these books. And imho, this is not what philosophy is about. I would say that philosophy is about asking the questions that matter. Instead of giving the answers that seem obvious. The funny thing is though: the series as a whole do present a interesting perspective, it is more about hope, sacrifice and compassion than the individual perspectives of these characters suggest.

This post has been edited by Avatar: 22 December 2016 - 12:28 AM

[Avatar]

But the main reason for keep on reading, imo would be: no other author ever managed to do this: create such a complex and original fantasy setting. And connect each and every storyline in such an elegant and brilliant way as Erikson has. Imagine writing 10 storylines like Lord of the Rings, and connect them in a beautiful and meaningful way. That is the hand of a true master of storytelling and worldcrafting.

[worry]

It strikes me that a lot of the pushback against "negative views" has more to do with these Lone Voices of Sanity who insist on framing their reactions to the books as some sort of David & Goliath battle against The Forum. It's a bit martyrish or self-aggrandizing imo (mind you, I'm not singling out the OP). In truth, the long-timers here -- of which I don't count myself one -- ran the gamut in reactions to the post-Bonehunters books. If things seem lopsided, it may just be that a lot of those who were turned off by the final few volumes got everything off their chest as the books came out, and the people who enjoyed them more visit the book subforums more routinely. And of course Apt is everywhere all at once.

This post has been edited by death rattle: 22 December 2016 - 02:04 AM

[Glass Desert]

 death rattle, on 22 December 2016 - 01:09 AM, said:

It strikes me that a lot of the pushback against "negative views" has more to do with these Lone Voices of Sanity who insist on framing their reactions to the books as some sort of David & Goliath battle against The Forum. It's a bit martyrish imo (mind you, I'm not singling out the OP).

That wasn't my intention, but I can see your point. My comment is more part of the rant though, not necessarily a genuine observation.

[MTS]

Look, the 'philosophising', if you want to call it that, is perhaps the biggest bugbear of the whole reading community. Like Apt said, it weighs down the narrative and simply becomes a slog to get to the good parts. I found myself skimming most of TCG because I couldn't stand it, and I only made it halfway through FoD before putting it down (also because the Tiste seemed no different from ordinary humans, but that's another discussion), and I don't think I'll pick it back up again. I much prefer ICE's later works (then again, I've liked ICE's work since the beginning), largely because he doesn't lay it on thick and he can generally write pretty good action (though I get frustrated at how vague his descriptions can be at times).So you'll find that's a pretty uncontroversial opinion.

That being said, generally the start and the end of the books are where it's at, and show glimpses of the awesome from the earlier books (like the end of TTH and the start of DoD).

[worry]

Yah I hear ya.

Personally I thought TBH was a huge crowd pleaser, and a fitting last hurrah for that kinda thing before shifting into the tone of the final books...and then the final four beat everything that came before TBH. I don't actually enjoy reading raw philosophy, and prefer it by far when it comes through fiction. Though I also take Avatar's point above -- if this was their point -- that all the introspection tends to get lumped together as "philosophy". Anyway, whatever it is, I like it all. But I love a good dirge, and think fun is generally overrated. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Andorion]

TtH can be a pretty divisive book. On my first read I absolutely hated it, especially the parts with Nimander.

But on my reread - Oh My God

Not a single line or word seemed unnecessary. All the foreshadowing, the little hints, the little setups - they come together like nothing I have ever seen before.

And the climax is possibly the second best in the series after TCG

As for the last books being more philosophical, I honestly don't see it. RG has Udinaas, true, whom I have always hated. But apart from that? No.
TtH - its a very different book from the rest of the series, and the strange narration can throw people, but it shines on the reread'

[EmperorMagus]

 Andorion, on 22 December 2016 - 02:59 AM, said:

TtH can be a pretty divisive book. On my first read I absolutely hated it, especially the parts with Nimander.

But on my reread - Oh My God

Not a single line or word seemed unnecessary. All the foreshadowing, the little hints, the little setups - they come together like nothing I have ever seen before.

And the climax is possibly the second best in the series after TCG

As for the last books being more philosophical, I honestly don't see it. RG has Udinaas, true, whom I have always hated. But apart from that? No.
TtH - its a very different book from the rest of the series, and the strange narration can throw people, but it shines on the reread'

I agree with all of your points. Udinaas is boring, but TtH is so good on a reread. I didn't like the book the first time around but went through it in a day the second time.

FoL and FoD are more "philosophical" if you want to call it that, and I do agree that the lack of action can be annoying at times. Once I adjusted my expectations of the two books from "Action-fest of gods and dragons murdering each other" into "Rather thoughtful and very very well written critique of our current society" they were a lot easier to get through. Honeslty, the Kharkansas trilogy reminds me more of what I've read from 18 century french philosophers (Voltaire specifically- and not in theme but in tone) rather than Malazan or Fantasy books. They are very good books, but perhaps meant for a different audience than MBotF.

[Abyss]

The floggings will commence at dawn.
BYOB.

[Glass Desert]

 Andorion, on 22 December 2016 - 02:59 AM, said:

As for the last books being more philosophical, I honestly don't see it. RG has Udinaas, true, whom I have always hated. But apart from that? No.
TtH - its a very different book from the rest of the series, and the strange narration can throw people, but it shines on the reread'

The narration isn't the problem actually, that was digestible enough.

This post has been edited by Glass Desert: 22 December 2016 - 08:16 AM

[champ]

On my first read, I thought TtH was boring bar the last 200 pages which are F awesome!

Honestly, the end is worth the slog...

On the rereads though it became one of my favourite books, strange.

[QuickTidal]

I will admit to something here, I read MAYBE 100 pages of TTH on my first series read before giving the fuck up, utterly annoyed. It's a singularly frustrating book, where I feel Erikson gave in to his navel gazing notions far too much.

So I just skipped it, and then read the last two books without having read the majority of TTH. Those last two books are spectacular (and yes, there is more philosophy and navel gazing you'll need to skim in those...but the meat of the story more than makes up for it).

I have since (after I finished the series once through) gone back and read TTH. There are some good bits in it (like Apt said, the final 200ish pages) but overall, it's the only book in the series I truly dislike

So you're not alone man. And even us older forum members are not averse to negative opinions, you are more than welcome to share opposing viewpoints as long as you are willing to discuss them with us.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Wasn't a big fan of TTH myself tbh, though the odd philosophical point i didn't mind (gee i wonder why...)

If anything TTH just takes forever to go anywhere, that was sort of my issue.

Didn't mind FOD (still yet to read the other books im very far behind)

[Gorefest]

TtH is probably the toughest read of the main series, not in the least because of the different tone of the story with the unreliable (and highly self-aggrandising) narrator Kruppe. But as people have said, the pay-off in the end is amazing and upon a re-read this book turns out to be full of neat references and foreshadowings.

I also find that I enjoy the introspective bits way more these days than I did on my first read. Unfortunately it takes time to digest these parts and if you are desperate for storylines to move forward it can be very frustrating, but on a reread (when you are not keen to learn where the story is heading) it is these bits that actually provide a great additional level of reward. I genuinely think that this is one of the main tight rope balancing issues that the series inherently has and that it is why almost everyone agrees that the series is massively rewarding upon a reread but at the same time quite a slog for first-time readers: the first-time reader wants to know what is going to happen and philosophising and introspections slow the narrative; for the rereader who already knows where the story is going, these introspections suddenly open up a wealth of foreshadowing and character motivations that you simply cannot grasp without knowing where characters end up. I cannot see how any author can possibly satisfy both camps entirely, but in my personal opinion I have never seen an author who gave it a better shot than SE. The first-time readers get their reward in the end-game of each book with some massive emotional pay-outs, the rereaders get to experience the skillful expositions of a great storyteller.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

 Gorefest, on 22 December 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

TtH is probably the toughest read of the main series, not in the least because of the different tone of the story with the unreliable (and highly self-aggrandising) narrator Kruppe. But as people have said, the pay-off in the end is amazing and upon a re-read this book turns out to be full of neat references and foreshadowings.

I also find that I enjoy the introspective bits way more these days than I did on my first read. Unfortunately it takes time to digest these parts and if you are desperate for storylines to move forward it can be very frustrating, but on a reread (when you are not keen to learn where the story is heading) it is these bits that actually provide a great additional level of reward. I genuinely think that this is one of the main tight rope balancing issues that the series inherently has and that it is why almost everyone agrees that the series is massively rewarding upon a reread but at the same time quite a slog for first-time readers: the first-time reader wants to know what is going to happen and philosophising and introspections slow the narrative; for the rereader who already knows where the story is going, these introspections suddenly open up a wealth of foreshadowing and character motivations that you simply cannot grasp without knowing where characters end up. I cannot see how any author can possibly satisfy both camps entirely, but in my personal opinion I have never seen an author who gave it a better shot than SE. The first-time readers get their reward in the end-game of each book with some massive emotional pay-outs, the rereaders get to experience the skillful expositions of a great storyteller.

The only way to please everyone is a choose-your-own-adventure book!

For real, I agree with Gorefest. The philosophizing and introspection is tough on a first read because the reader wants the plot to move forward. It's only on a reread that one can see that said philosophizing and introspection foreshadows where the plot will move forward to and offers some support for why the plot will move in the directions it does.

Despite loving TTH in its entirety, I've actually been holding off on starting Fall of Light because so many have people said it's almost all philosophizing. And because humans can't survive on a literary diet of Malazan alone.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 22 December 2016 - 02:01 PM

[Abyss]

I have definitely challenged negative opinions on the books, but that's because I disagree with them and am prepared to have the discussion. If someone just blasts a negative post onto a fan forum because they feel like it and can't back it up when someone posts the opposite, maybe the fan forum wasn't the place to do it.
Typical examples, people who deeply otherwise loved DG but hated it because 'the good guys lost'. People who hate HoC specifically because we didn't get the big battle at the end. People who despise MT because it is a new setting and cast from the previous books. ... basically people who hate it when the author doesn't do what they want them to do. Also people who obviously missed a detail that revokes everything they have a problem with, ie the 'paper cut' folks who weren't paying attention when Erikson slowly laid out his 'magic system' in the previous books.

But I don't do personal attacks and I don't argue anyone doesn't have the right to post their opinions or disagree with mine.



Except for Apt, but he's cold and dead inside and/or a Communist Cylon Ayn Rand cultist. Him I can disagree with just on principle.

[Aptorian]

But seriously why not a papercut?

This post has been edited by Abyss: 23 December 2016 - 05:24 AM