[ContrarianMalazanReader]

This is a question I started asking myself as I progressed through the books, and the reasons are:

The military characters are often portrayed in the most flattering light, and if they do unforgivably horrible things, Erikson and Esslemont are quick to brush these aside and spend the rest of the story convincing us that they are better than most people. Case in point Tavore, who sent Felisin to the Otataral mines where nothing good was going to happen to her, and worse she is placed under the care of Baudin who doesn't bother at all protecting Felisin while planning their escape, yet Erikson spends the rest of the series brushing that off and by telling us that Tavore is a deeply compassionate woman who does what's best for everyone. Bullshit!

There are several instances where we learn about military characters who were petty criminals and generally awful until joining the military, and joining the military has made them better people, like that Daru character in OST whose name escapes me who was a petty thug in the streets of Darujhistan, but joining the ranks of the Malazan military has somehow kept his worst traits in check.

Letherii society is portrayed as awful in general, but even then the Letherii military are far more honourable than than everyone else.

Stonewielder features a Dal Hon character who spends a lot of time reflecting upon the difference between a warrior and soldier, and how he used to be a warrior but is now a soldier because he has learned to fight as part of a unit.

Finally the latter books gave me the impression that nothing beats joining the military, and hell, the military should be in charge of everything. I almost expected an afterword from the authors encouraging the readers to join the military.

Is there a reason for the authors to have such a romantic view of the military? AFAIK neither Erikson nor Esslemont have done any military service, so their championing of the military strikes me as odd.

[worry]

Not particularly. Next question!

[worry]

Just kidding, it's an interesting topic worth exploring. I think the background of the two authors' interests in the military squad as a focus for storytelling -- aside from (non-military) life experience, sf&f, and gaming -- comes in large part from their respective affection for novels & stories (perhaps non-fiction too) set during the Vietnam War.

In terms of MBotF etc., I have a fairly different reading of the text than you do for sure. I don't believe military members are painted in a particularly flattering light, and your examples (Tavore for one) don't strike me as wholly accurately reflecting the text as I read it. That said, there is clear affection for many characters, including (not coincidentally, I'd agree) so many of the marines. I just don't see it as 'flattering' to any significant degree. I'm sure if these stories were set in a busy kitchen, there would be affection for many of the characters, a band-of-brothers-and-sisters camaraderie that shines through, with some real bastards inside and outside that band for contrast, and even some characters who personally reflect on how finding such a band has changed their life for the better. I suppose there's some romance in that, but I don't think it's divorced from reality if that's the connotation you meant it.

This post has been edited by worry: 17 April 2021 - 11:17 PM

[ContrarianMalazanReader]

Come to think of it, the only military character that is unequivocally portrayed negatively is Korbolo Dom.

[Tsundoku]

ContrarianMalazanReader, on 18 April 2021 - 04:07 AM, said:

Come to think of it, the only military character that is unequivocally portrayed negatively is Korbolo Dom.

You don't consider Pormqual a military figure?
I can't remember any details at all but wasn't he supposed to have had at least some experience or was he purely a noble appointee? The wiki doesn't go into his background much.

[ContrarianMalazanReader]

We're given no info on Pormqual's background, but based on very brief appearance near the end of DG, it's pretty obvious that he didn't have any real training and most likely advanced through connections, which might explain why Laseen decided to cull the nobility, as the rot was starting to set in, but that last part is pure speculation on my behalf so don't take my word for it.

But back to Pormqual, I don't consider him a military character.

[D'rek]

Yeah, I think it's a fair statement. There's a lot of "this military force needs to do the military thing to save the world" stories in Malazan, rather than, say, making the world better through international diplomacy and outreach. Though I wouldn't necessarily say that a pro-fantasy-military stance in the books should reflect a pro-real-world-military stance.

[ContrarianMalazanReader]

D, on 18 April 2021 - 06:12 PM, said:

Yeah, I think it's a fair statement. There's a lot of "this military force needs to do the military thing to save the world" stories in Malazan, rather than, say, making the world better through international diplomacy and outreach. Though I wouldn't necessarily say that a pro-fantasy-military stance in the books should reflect a pro-real-world-military stance.

There's also this weird narrative dissonance where most characters agree to themselves and with each other that yes, war is horrible, but in the end the Malazan military are the ones who solve the major conflicts, as they are the ones who rid the world of all the ills originated by the Crippled God, such as the Pannion Domin, Rhulad Sengar's psychotic reign of terror in Lether, thwarting the Forkrul Assail in Kolanse and finally freeing the Crippled God himself, all thanks to Tavore's implausibly intricate planning, so hurray for the military who are the ones that get the job done.

This post has been edited by ContrarianMalazanReader: 19 April 2021 - 04:18 AM

[Macros]

The Bridgeburners as basically Team America

[Tsundoku]

Fuck yeah!

[Keysi]

In one of the podcasts Steve talks about being very anti-war, and that all war films are inherently anti-war. Anti-military is a different yet question though.

[Aptorian]

Keysi, on 01 May 2021 - 04:45 PM, said:

In one of the podcasts Steve talks about being very anti-war, and that all war films are inherently anti-war. Anti-military is a different yet question though.

Don't know what Erikson's arguments are here but I think that's just plain wrong. To a person who is against war, you'll identify all the horrors of war and the arguments against it. To the person who is pro-military and gung-ho about nationalism and fighting for your country, a war movie will be a romantic story about people suffering through Hell so good will triumph over evil.

I'll bet you that movies like full metal jacket, saving private Ryan, , Heartbreak Ridge, We were soldiers, etc. has helped recruit more than a few kids.

[ContrarianMalazanReader]

Keysi, on 01 May 2021 - 04:45 PM, said:

In one of the podcasts Steve talks about being very anti-war, and that all war films are inherently anti-war. Anti-military is a different yet question though.

As I posted earlier, while everyone agrees that war is horrible, the military characters are the ones who are given the most positive portrayal.

I think it's perfectly possible to be anti-war and pro-military at the same time.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

ContrarianMalazanReader, on 01 May 2021 - 09:13 PM, said:

Keysi, on 01 May 2021 - 04:45 PM, said:

In one of the podcasts Steve talks about being very anti-war, and that all war films are inherently anti-war. Anti-military is a different yet question though.

As I posted earlier, while everyone agrees that war is horrible, the military characters are the ones who are given the most positive portrayal.

Erikson's paratactic style leaves that up to the reader to a significant extent. From my perspective the portrayals even of Whiskeyjack and the Bridgeburners seemed a bit less positive than, say, Tehol or Kruppe or Anomander... or (like Anomander) various other weapon-wielders who aren't primarily 'military' in the sense of regimented units inside a military organization.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 01 May 2021 - 10:04 PM

[Siergiej]

I wouldn't argue against saying that Malazan is pro-military, because yeah, Malazan soldiers and army are portrayed in a flattering way, especially compared to pretty much the entire rest of the world. But I definitely disagree that Tavore is an example of that. Until very far into the series she is generally disliked and distrusted and barely shown to have personality beyond the idea of Cold Iron. And her treatment of Felisin is not brushed off at all. Like, in the culmination of one of the major story arcs, Tavore stabs her. That is both literally and symbolically a summary of their relationship and it's hardly a good look on Tavore.

[ContrarianMalazanReader]

Siergiej, on 03 May 2021 - 05:03 PM, said:

And her treatment of Felisin is not brushed off at all. Like, in the culmination of one of the major story arcs, Tavore stabs her. That is both literally and symbolically a summary of their relationship and it's hardly a good look on Tavore.

You mean when she kills Felisin towards the end of HoC? But Tavore didn't know it was Felisin, and doesn't ever learn she killed her own sister.

[Siergiej]

But the reader knows that. And we also know from the ending of The Crippled God that Tavore has been haunted by guilt after losing track of Felisin. Also, Felisin's actions as sha'ik were mainly fueled by her rage towards Tavore.

In the end, everyone can judge Tavore for themselves but her treatment of Felisin is by no means brushed off by Erikson. It is foundational to both of their character arcs.

[Silentarius]

Erikson has a romantic and deeply sentimental view of soldiers, and he sees the military, its rituals, codes of conduct and webs of mutual support as the only truly honourable thing in a corrupt and corrupting world. His attitude is most concisely expressed in A. E. Housman's brief poem, "Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries":

These, in the days when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.

Erikson (who I suspect was never himself a soldier) is at his most sentimental in his account of the Grey Swords and other semi-religious mercenary companies, for like Housman, it is the staunchness and fidelity of soldiers who are nevertheless fighting for pay that he finds most sympathetic. I suppose he must have had at the back of his mind the military orders of the crusader states, the Templars and Hospitalers.

[ContrarianMalazanReader]

Silentarius, on 14 July 2021 - 04:45 PM, said:

Erikson has a romantic and deeply sentimental view of soldiers, and he sees the military, its rituals, codes of conduct and webs of mutual support as the only truly honourable thing in a corrupt and corrupting world. His attitude is most concisely expressed in A. E. Housman's brief poem, "Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries":

These, in the days when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.

Erikson (who I suspect was never himself a soldier) is at his most sentimental in his account of the Grey Swords and other semi-religious mercenary companies, for like Housman, it is the staunchness and fidelity of soldiers who are nevertheless fighting for pay that he finds most sympathetic. I suppose he must have had at the back of his mind the military orders of the crusader states, the Templars and Hospitalers.

Yeah. As I kept reading the books, the authors' fondness for the military becomes increasingly obvious, and not just the Malazan military, it's pretty much any armed forces.

Sha'ik's council is full of unsavoury characters, Bidithal in particular, but Sha'ik's armed forces are decent people as revealed in The Bonehunters when they ask to join Ganoes's army.

Letherii society is awful in general, but the Letherii military are portrayed as honourable and perhaps Lether's only saving grace.

The Crimson Guard, the only military force that has successfully opposed the Malazan Empire, are given the most flattering portrayal of all the entities that oppose the Malazan, and I suspect this is precisely because of their military nature.

I've also come to notice that military characters rarely if ever commit any atrocities. Pretty much all of the atrocities are carried out by non-military characters.

The only military character who is unequivocally portrayed negatively is Korbolo Dom (I don't count Pormqual because it's pretty clear to me that he only advanced through his nobility connections).

Frankly I find Erikson and Esslemont's fondness of the military to be a bit naive, especially considering the real life carnage and abuses carried out by the military, and especially considering how authoritative military governments are (Myanmar anyone?).

[Macros]

Is there a chance that Erikson, being the archaeologist and (presumed as a corollary) history buff somehow has absorbed by osmosis some of the guff that the military had honour back in the day because all we have is the mythos from ancient Greece etc?