[luke]

Mcflury
i still believe SE had made himself a character with the narration thing, even if he used Kruppe, we all know that Kruppe is " all knowing" since the first book.
so for him to use 2 pages at the end of ech chapter to state the obvious does not make sense. obviously he is trying a new approach and as Aptorian said: i hope he will never repeat that again.
i will tell u my problem what if i really loved the first 7 books and really hated the 8th ?doese that make me an enemy of SE? maybe i am more loyal to the malazan stroy than to steve himself.

[Mcflury]

I can understand you say SE made himself a character with the narration thing, but quite honoustly, if I follow that line, every word uttered by any character ressembles an opinion of SE to me, so every single word in these books is a narration of SE then. Saying you hate this book because of SE's narrations is like saying you hate it because SE wrote it then. What you should've said (and probably meant in the first place, but my thickheaded... head just doesn't grasp it) was that you don't like the way SE narrates in this book, which is dependant completely on taste and thus not a subject of discussion. It is as it is.

Also, being loyal to the Malazan story = being loyal to SE to me, since SE is the one creating the Malazan story. But I do grasp what you mean.

And we didn't know for sure Kruppe knew everything from GotM. We knew he knew alot, but it seemed in the first book most of his information came from spies (city guards,...) and a bold person could even say Kruppe was extremely good at guessing. TtH has learned us (or at least confirmed) that Kruppe knows perfectly what's going on in the city through use of spies, but also just because he is so powerful he knows all. My guess is Kruppe can read minds of all around him, oxes included, which makes sure he knows exactly what they're gonna do at what times.
Anyways, I still think the narrations were quite fun to read and useful on top.

Ah well, I've spent too many words on this subject already, and thus I have decided they'll be the last I'll say about this subject

[The Dark Wanderer]

Just a thing to the people who skip through the Kruppe naration passages, they are well worth it espically on re-read as they give some beautifully subtle hints as to what is to come.

Returning to topic, I'm beginning to dislike like Cottilion (which is almost sacrilege) as he seems to exist more and more as a counter-point to ST than as a character in his own right which he did in the earlies books. Other characters who iritate me include Envy (in TtH only) because she exists just for a silly mage fight with Spite at the end.

[caladanbrood]

I'm not happy with people intertwining Itkovian and the Redeemer.


Itkovian was a warrior, who kicked serious ass and saved the Imass. At which point he died.

The Redeemer, on the other hand, is a godling created purely by worshippers' image of what a god-Itkovian should be like. They are not the same entity, in the same way that Fener and the random forest boar that tribes worshipped to create Fener were the same entity. So hate on the Redeemer if you want (I don't personally, I thought it was an excellent demonstration of the danger of naivete in the Malazan world), but leave Itkovian alone dammit The distinction between the two should be fairly obvious if you think about it



With regards the Kruppe passages, I can see why people didn't like them, and I can even see why they were too much like Steve putting himself into the book. In fact, I agree with luke about pretty much everything, except that I enjoyed them I've got past the stage in this series really, where the characters themselves really matter. It's a story- and world-building exercise now. Anything that adds to that is good, in my book, provided it shows consistancy. Hence, the characters that I hate are rather few in number, because Erikson is pretty damn consistant. There are one or two from RotCG, but I think that's mostly ICE's lack of practice showing through, nothing that won't improve in time.
Oh, and of course, Kallor, because we're not supposed to anymore

[Use Of Weapons]

I've actually though for some time that Kruppe is a bit Mary-Sue-ish. Which is not to say that I don't like him -- he's one of my favourite characters. And his physical appearance is not suggestive of Mary-Sue-ness. But in his inexplicable powers, intelligence, manipulative ability, and increasing prominence (to the extent of becoming the narrative voice for TTH), he does have soem of the characteristics of a Mary-Sue.

[Jude]

The thing about Kruppe is that I've heard alot of people express displeasure in the past about every second SE peasant, tribesman, or lowbrow soldier character having a PHD in philosophy. People would often say that SE was just creating characters as a direct conduit for his ponderings on the world. While I found my share of flaws with this theory (that's exactly what an author's characters should do, for one) I could kind of see it from their point of view as well. I DID notice a change in that in the later books, though, mostly TtH actually, and you do get alot more dumb characters that stay dumb and don't bust out into a monologue about society. One guy who CAN believably bust out into said monologues is the Kruppester. I don't mind really that SE uses Kruppe as a partial narrator in TtH. Afterall, his commentating was only present during the Darujhistan chapters, and it was way more believable than having Antsy and Torvald speculate, with flowery inner-dialogue, about tragedy and the workings of a city.

[Almar mae' Ka'zole]

The Mhybe although it was not a total hate on. I definitely dislike Crump, I mean great character but what a friggin moron. Hes responsible for a number of big number of blunders.

[Aptorian]

Ghelel from RCG is a close runner up for most irritating character, just after the Mhybe...

[Epiph]

 Jude, on Nov 17 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

The thing about Kruppe is that I've heard alot of people express displeasure in the past about every second SE peasant, tribesman, or lowbrow soldier character having a PHD in philosophy.

In SE's defense, to paraphrase Will Durant, the appeal of reading philosophy is that most people have thought or felt similar things to the great philosophers, but were unable to fully express them. So, if you assume that SE is sort of translating the directions that characters' thoughts and feelings take, it becomes slightly more stomachable. Also, it is a little bit limiting to assign the vast majority of humanity to the shoals of shallowness, don't you think? Just because someone is poor and hard working doesn't mean that they don't mull over deeper ideas from time to time.

That said, I mostly disagree with this aspect of SE's writing. I find it stretches the limits of credibility. However, you do have characters like Harllo's foster parents who are clearly good, but thoughtless people. Gruntle, for that matter, is not prone to mull over the existential tripe that Cutter/Crokus ALWAYS seems to be expounding upon, with the magnanimous focus of a whiny hipster. Scillara's internal dialogue is much more "He loves me/he loves me not," than "The world is screwed and what is the point?" and Coll also seems more likely to look at the world through a material (not materialistic) eye than a metaphysical one.

So yes, there's a lot of improbable philosophizing that goes on, but there's also a lot of down to earth characters who see no point in looking at the broad generalities and truths of the world.

[Fanatic-Templar]

I loathed Karsa until this book, just for the way there were these characters who had been built up to have immense power, and Karsa just went by and did not care. How it's implied he could have taken on Tavore's entire Malazan army at the end of House of Chains, for example, but undeniably most apparent in how he just knocked out Icarium at their first meeting. Icarium had been built up to be a barely restrained apocalypse, and Karsa just comes over and knocks him out like it was nothing at all. It's a thing of character, how he was so in-your-face about the whole thing.

Thus, there was immense satisfaction at his admission of inferiority during the confrontation between Dassem Ultor and Anomander Rake.

The only character I positively hate are those involved in the culmination of the Chain of Dogs. Mallick Rel, Pormqual, Korbolo Dom...

[teholbeddict]

 Aptorian, on Nov 18 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

Ghelel from RCG is a close runner up for most irritating character, just after the Mhybe...

I actually didn't mind Ghelel, but you're right no characther will ever be worse that the Mhybe. She was like nails on a chalkboard! I think I wanted her to die and put me out of my misery and suffering more than she wanted to die to end hers!

[Daser]

There are plenty of characters i like/love/hate/annoy me but that is what i love about reading.

It wouldnt work if you didnt have strong feelings about the characters.


I do have a few problems with Erikson way of handling his characters tho. He kills to many of the "good" guys off. If anyone is descriped as loved or admired by the characters around them they die. (Whiskeyjack-Itkovian-Trull and more)

If i have to choose one to hate it has to be Kruppe. I love reading about "clever" Quick Ben because he seem like powerfull and clever human that sometimes at great risk goes agaisnt the "powerfull". Then we have Kruppe 1 step smarter and he is just allknowing confounding gods and humans alike without ever being in any danger at all. It just dont work for me. He is to knowing/powerfull/mystirous.

So in my dreams the mules rebel and kicks the crap out of Kruppe and life is good for man and mules again.

[pedro]

 panic, on Jun 21 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

As the story progresses and we see more of the characters sometimes our opinions change. I am curious as to some of your most hated characters. Did any of your feelings evolved.

Mine:

Mhybe still

Hellian - I absolutely hate her. annoys the hell out of me but I still like her being a POV character


I sometimes like Seren Pedac and sometimes don't


I didn't like Karsa at first but now love him

it would have to be kallor,first he kills wiskey jack and now hes grown a concience poor hard done by kallor

[Jude]

 Epiph, on Nov 19 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

 Jude, on Nov 17 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

The thing about Kruppe is that I've heard alot of people express displeasure in the past about every second SE peasant, tribesman, or lowbrow soldier character having a PHD in philosophy.

In SE's defense, to paraphrase Will Durant, the appeal of reading philosophy is that most people have thought or felt similar things to the great philosophers, but were unable to fully express them. So, if you assume that SE is sort of translating the directions that characters' thoughts and feelings take, it becomes slightly more stomachable. Also, it is a little bit limiting to assign the vast majority of humanity to the shoals of shallowness, don't you think? Just because someone is poor and hard working doesn't mean that they don't mull over deeper ideas from time to time.

That said, I mostly disagree with this aspect of SE's writing. I find it stretches the limits of credibility. However, you do have characters like Harllo's foster parents who are clearly good, but thoughtless people. Gruntle, for that matter, is not prone to mull over the existential tripe that Cutter/Crokus ALWAYS seems to be expounding upon, with the magnanimous focus of a whiny hipster. Scillara's internal dialogue is much more "He loves me/he loves me not," than "The world is screwed and what is the point?" and Coll also seems more likely to look at the world through a material (not materialistic) eye than a metaphysical one.

So yes, there's a lot of improbable philosophizing that goes on, but there's also a lot of down to earth characters who see no point in looking at the broad generalities and truths of the world.

Epiph, I completely agree. I was simply putting into perspective what I have learned to be a huge gripe with the series for people who DON'T appreciate the MBotF as much as everyone on malazanempire.com do haha. You're right though. Erikson does have alot of down to earth characters. I guess some people would disagree though.. What I'll also note is that he has gotten alot better at doing this with every book. I found DG was particularly bad for everyone being a philosopher, not that I even minded that. I kind of found it refreshing, but I can see how others would be turned off by it. By TtH though, I think SE has ridded himself of this tendancy entirely in that his characters now seem to be playing out their roles as real people to get his personal essays accross rather than just being a direct conduit for what he has to say. That's not to say they weren't in earlier books. I'm just saying that I found TtH to be the highest achievement in this field.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

The dumb characters-philosophising part has bugged me in the past, but it's not their character, just how I struggle to understand it sometimes.

Besides, maybe all morons are like that.

[Apsalar Shadowdancer]

Errant. /thread

[caladanbrood]

 Apsalar Shadowdancer, on Nov 22 2008, 07:31 AM, said:

Errant. /thread

Bah, only if you're not bothering thinking about any of it

[Gem Windcaster]

 Aptorian, on Nov 18 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

Ghelel from RCG is a close runner up for most irritating character, just after the Mhybe...

I think the most irritating character and the the most hated character are completely different - to me irritating and hated is two completely separate concepts.


*kicks and stomps Apt's signature*
...
Ceterum censeo Errant esse delendam!

- Gem, will soon need to put that in her signature...

[BeLeG]

I don't like most of SE's female characters very much
I don't think they are very realistic and most of them are just annoying

[Epiph]

 BeLeG, on Nov 23 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

I don't like most of SE's female characters very much
I don't think they are very realistic and most of them are just annoying

I agree for the most part. I also find that the female soldiers aren't very well personalized.