Malazan Empire: What the - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What the ****

#1 User is offline   EmperorMagus 

  • Scarecrow of Low House PEN
  • Group: Tehol's Blissful Chickens
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-June 12
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:35 PM

Full disclosure, it took me more than three months to listen to this 32 hr audiobook. It was at times a slug, boring, and even aggravating.

I think it was a masterpiece. A work of art worthy of the highest praise. It made me think, and even though I don't agree with the central thesis of the book, that all life has dignity and deserves respect, I think the point was masterfully made.

I think I didn't understand half the book. For example, Prazek and Dathenar (I hope I'm spelling the names correctly) were a mystery all the way through. Was their talk of abandoning the bridge actually about abandoning responsibility? I think that is probably the case. Did they consider their abandonment the appropriate thing to do? I have no idea. Did they think the Husk should've remained in the field and fought to the last man in Valley of Tahns, when they talked about abandoning the bridge again at the culmination of the book? I don't know.

Wrenek and Ginea were the only innocent characters in the book. Their roles broke my heart. Similarly, the only people who could lay claim to righteousness in their actions were Deniers.

You ask me, but have you not read the book? The entire thesis is that there is no such a thing as righteous vengeance, no fury that can excuse war and murder.
I disagree, I vehemently disagree. There are some things, such as dignity, that are fundamental to humanity. The deniers had their dignity stripped of them, washed away in their lake and now they are bare on the shore. They have a right, a moral responsibility in fact, to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again to others.

I am conflicted about Anomander and Mother Dark. Mother Dark commanded the First Son to restrain himself. I think this shows how much she cared for him, that while she considered all of the Tiste as children who did not know what was right and what was wrong, the only Tiste she actually considered her son was Anomander. I still can't make up my mind whether she did the right thing by doing what she did or whether Anomande was right in his disobedience. Is it possible that neither was mistaken?

Lassa Rook was a relief to read, until they arrived at Hood's camp and that broke my heart again. I admit I don't understand her husbands' actions at all.

Renarr ... What the fuck? I believe she killed Vatha because she wanted to stop Hunn Raal. Maybe she also wanted to save (?) Mother Dark. I'm still in shock though.

The Jaghut and Hood are awesome. I can't wait to read about their war on Death.

The climax of this book made me cry like I cried at the end of Memories of Ice.
Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
#sarcasm
3

#2 User is offline   Andorion 

  • God
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 4,516
  • Joined: 30-July 11
  • Interests:All things Malazan, sundry sci-fi and fantasy, history, Iron Maiden

Posted 04 March 2017 - 01:22 AM

View PostEmperorMagus, on 03 March 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

Full disclosure, it took me more than three months to listen to this 32 hr audiobook. It was at times a slug, boring, and even aggravating.

I think it was a masterpiece. A work of art worthy of the highest praise. It made me think, and even though I don't agree with the central thesis of the book, that all life has dignity and deserves respect, I think the point was masterfully made.

I think I didn't understand half the book. For example, Prazek and Dathenar (I hope I'm spelling the names correctly) were a mystery all the way through. Was their talk of abandoning the bridge actually about abandoning responsibility? I think that is probably the case. Did they consider their abandonment the appropriate thing to do? I have no idea. Did they think the Husk should've remained in the field and fought to the last man in Valley of Tahns, when they talked about abandoning the bridge again at the culmination of the book? I don't know.

Wrenek and Ginea were the only innocent characters in the book. Their roles broke my heart. Similarly, the only people who could lay claim to righteousness in their actions were Deniers.

You ask me, but have you not read the book? The entire thesis is that there is no such a thing as righteous vengeance, no fury that can excuse war and murder.
I disagree, I vehemently disagree. There are some things, such as dignity, that are fundamental to humanity. The deniers had their dignity stripped of them, washed away in their lake and now they are bare on the shore. They have a right, a moral responsibility in fact, to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again to others.

I am conflicted about Anomander and Mother Dark. Mother Dark commanded the First Son to restrain himself. I think this shows how much she cared for him, that while she considered all of the Tiste as children who did not know what was right and what was wrong, the only Tiste she actually considered her son was Anomander. I still can't make up my mind whether she did the right thing by doing what she did or whether Anomande was right in his disobedience. Is it possible that neither was mistaken?

Lassa Rook was a relief to read, until they arrived at Hood's camp and that broke my heart again. I admit I don't understand her husbands' actions at all.

Renarr ... What the fuck? I believe she killed Vatha because she wanted to stop Hunn Raal. Maybe she also wanted to save (?) Mother Dark. I'm still in shock though.

The Jaghut and Hood are awesome. I can't wait to read about their war on Death.

The climax of this book made me cry like I cried at the end of Memories of Ice.


Nice write-up EM

While I generally agree with you, I have some doubts whether this book is actually asserting that all war or violence is invalid.

I think what this book is trying to show is how peace is lost, how dignity is stripped away, and how vengeance is born. In the process of depicting this, I think SE visits some old themes from the main series, mainly the fallacy of purity.

Think back to the Liosan and the Assail - how their certainty in their cause, their focus on purity made them capable of genocide.

I think SE is taking that breakdown of purity and applying it to vengeance, to a quest for justice. To the readers, the Deniers are absolutely justified in what they are doing, given the atrocities against them. It is here that SE is probably sounding a warning, that even in a battle like this, there are no pure motives. I think he tries to show that notions of righteousness must always be questioned.
1

#3 User is offline   EmperorMagus 

  • Scarecrow of Low House PEN
  • Group: Tehol's Blissful Chickens
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-June 12
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:02 AM

View PostAndorion, on 04 March 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

Nice write-up EM

While I generally agree with you, I have some doubts whether this book is actually asserting that all war or violence is invalid.

I think what this book is trying to show is how peace is lost, how dignity is stripped away, and how vengeance is born. In the process of depicting this, I think SE visits some old themes from the main series, mainly the fallacy of purity.

Think back to the Liosan and the Assail - how their certainty in their cause, their focus on purity made them capable of genocide.

I think SE is taking that breakdown of purity and applying it to vengeance, to a quest for justice. To the readers, the Deniers are absolutely justified in what they are doing, given the atrocities against them. It is here that SE is probably sounding a warning, that even in a battle like this, there are no pure motives. I think he tries to show that notions of righteousness must always be questioned.



I disagree.

Revenge against the legion for what they did to Andarist and his fiancee would have been justified, defending yourself and your city against people who greed for what you have would have been justified. In both cases, Anomander was refused leave to seek vengeance.

I agree that SE is warning against purity of purpose leading to a loss of peace, that is certainly a theme of the book; but I think an even deeper point that is being made here is that nothing justifies the death and suffering that war causes. Nothing.

The Deniers are different from the Liosan or the Andii, and I think that has to do with the fact that they do not look for justification at all. They don't care about motives, or right and wrong. I believe this is the reason that SE is not as hard on them as he is on the Liosan and the Andii. What they are doing is still wrong, but at least they do not try to justify it.

At the end, when the Hust Legion engages the Andii, we see what the only acceptable form of violence is; standing like a bulwark against invaders and only defending yourself as your friends are cut down around you. I vehemently disagree with this assertion. Yes, the lies we tell ourselves to justify our wars are abhorrent and disgusting most of the time. But sometimes those lies and those propaganda are important for defending a principle that is more valuable than any human life (at which point I realize I've argued myself into espousing puritan ideological violence, fuck does this book make one go crazy or what?)

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 04 March 2017 - 02:03 AM

Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
#sarcasm
0

#4 User is offline   Andorion 

  • God
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 4,516
  • Joined: 30-July 11
  • Interests:All things Malazan, sundry sci-fi and fantasy, history, Iron Maiden

Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:15 AM

View PostEmperorMagus, on 04 March 2017 - 02:02 AM, said:

View PostAndorion, on 04 March 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

Nice write-up EM

While I generally agree with you, I have some doubts whether this book is actually asserting that all war or violence is invalid.

I think what this book is trying to show is how peace is lost, how dignity is stripped away, and how vengeance is born. In the process of depicting this, I think SE visits some old themes from the main series, mainly the fallacy of purity.

Think back to the Liosan and the Assail - how their certainty in their cause, their focus on purity made them capable of genocide.

I think SE is taking that breakdown of purity and applying it to vengeance, to a quest for justice. To the readers, the Deniers are absolutely justified in what they are doing, given the atrocities against them. It is here that SE is probably sounding a warning, that even in a battle like this, there are no pure motives. I think he tries to show that notions of righteousness must always be questioned.



I disagree.

Revenge against the legion for what they did to Andarist and his fiancee would have been justified, defending yourself and your city against people who greed for what you have would have been justified. In both cases, Anomander was refused leave to seek vengeance.

I agree that SE is warning against purity of purpose leading to a loss of peace, that is certainly a theme of the book; but I think an even deeper point that is being made here is that nothing justifies the death and suffering that war causes. Nothing.

The Deniers are different from the Liosan or the Andii, and I think that has to do with the fact that they do not look for justification at all. They don't care about motives, or right and wrong. I believe this is the reason that SE is not as hard on them as he is on the Liosan and the Andii. What they are doing is still wrong, but at least they do not try to justify it.

At the end, when the Hust Legion engages the Andii, we see what the only acceptable form of violence is; standing like a bulwark against invaders and only defending yourself as your friends are cut down around you. I vehemently disagree with this assertion. Yes, the lies we tell ourselves to justify our wars are abhorrent and disgusting most of the time. But sometimes those lies and those propaganda are important for defending a principle that is more valuable than any human life (at which point I realize I've argued myself into espousing puritan ideological violence, fuck does this book make one go crazy or what?)


I think the idea about justification is more at the level of thought than at the level of action. What SE is warning about is being complacent about your cause. Defending against an invasion, avenging an atrocity - these are usually seen as morally right causes, but the participants in such should never lose sight of the fact that they are engaged in a campaign of violence. And violence breeds its own problems
0

#5 User is offline   EmperorMagus 

  • Scarecrow of Low House PEN
  • Group: Tehol's Blissful Chickens
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-June 12
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:43 AM

View PostAndorion, on 04 March 2017 - 02:15 AM, said:


I think the idea about justification is more at the level of thought than at the level of action. What SE is warning about is being complacent about your cause. Defending against an invasion, avenging an atrocity - these are usually seen as morally right causes, but the participants in such should never lose sight of the fact that they are engaged in a campaign of violence. And violence breeds its own problems



That's a fair point.
Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
#sarcasm
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users