[Dolorous Menhir]

Greymane;205286 said:

Dolorous Menhir,

A lot of the questions and problems you had are answered in the books. Maybe because you disliked it so much you skimmed parts and missed the answers you were looking for?

No, I read the whole story. I don't skip parts of books and then complain about missing information. That would make me an idiot.

Now, I did not read the glossary, but that is not part of the book. It is an accessory to the book. I am only willing to pause reading and look up information in a glossary for one reason, and that is to find the definitions of technical terms or foreign words that it would be cumbersome to explain within the main text.

Using the glossary to provide additional background is also fine, but not as a substitute for providing necessary information within the story. I'm perfectly happy to read some fleshed-out historical detail or character biography after I'm done with the story. I'm not happy to have to refer to the glossary just to find out who a character is, what side they are on, etc.

Quote

I find the hatred of the 'philosophy bits' strange on a Malazan board to say the least. Erikson packs his books full of warrior poets bemoaning human nature and spouting their own philosophies, and IMO it's usually handled far more awkwardly than Bakker does. I'd like to hear a bit more detail on this complaint - what exactly is it about Bakker's use of philosphy that bugs people, as opposed to Erikson?

Erikson has plenty of philosophy, it's true, but it is not the only thing going on in the books. You don't read Erikson and think "wow, all that was just a tedious excuse to include lots of philosophy that would be more suited to an academic discussion."

People can, and have argued, that Erikson puts too much philosophy in the mouths of his characters. That's a fair criticism, and it is strengthened by the fact that Erikson has other things going on in his novels. His characters actually change and develop. The strong are capable of losing. The weak can actually achieve something. New depths can be revealed, and we can be genuinely shocked or affected by what he does to his people (Coltaine, for example). Having a bunch of soldiers meditate on the nature of war and civilisation over and over again can be a distraction from a genuinely entertaining and gripping story.

With Bakker, it is clearly all just an excuse for him to play out his philosophical ideas. Now that is all well and good, many writers want to make a point or promote a viewpoint. They just do a competent job of writing a decent story around that aim. Bakker does not.

[Greymane]

Dolorous Menhir;205288 said:

No, I read the whole story. I don't skip parts of books and then complain about missing information. That would make me an idiot.

Now, I did not read the glossary, but that is not part of the book. It is an accessory to the book. I am only willing to pause reading and look up information in a glossary for one reason, and that is to find the definitions of technical terms or foreign words that it would be cumbersome to explain within the main text.

Using the glossary to provide additional background is also fine, but not as a substitute for providing necessary information within the story. I'm perfectly happy to read some fleshed-out historical detail or character biography after I'm done with the story. I'm not happy to have to refer to the glossary just to find out who a character is, what side they are on, etc.

I wasn't trying to imply you're an idiot, apologies if thats how it came across.

I wasn't referring to the glossary however, but to complaints such as;

Dolorous Menhir;205288 said:

His worldbuilding is derivative. We're lucky he didn't give Inri Sejunus the initials JC. The Holy War is just a big blank. The reader is not capable of caring about the conquest of a heathen land when he is NOT TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT HEATHEN WORLD. Bakker doesn't tell you anything about the lands of the Fanim.

I think Bakker does a pretty good job of filling in a lot of details about the Fanim without ever using many Fanim characters as POVs. We know where they came from, how their faith was created, we know details of their faith, we know about their customs, styles of dress, battle tactics, economic policies.

His worldbuilding is obviously inspired by Europe and the Middle East at the time of the First crusade, I certainly won't dispute that, but I don't see any inherent problem in that, it's as common as mud in fantasy. GRRM's Westeros is clearly a modified version of medieval western Europe, Jordan's various nations are quite easy to identify with their historical counterparts.

Dolorous Menhir;205288 said:

Only four people are fully physically described - Kellhus, Esmenet, Cnaiur, Achamian. The rest are just names. Nothing else is described. I have no picture in my head of what Nersei Proyas looked like, of what Shimeh looked like, of how the Fanim differed in appearance from the Inrithi.

Proyas is described. He's has a beard, trimmed short, he's tall and well built for a Ketyai, he usually has a stern expression. Other characters like Serwe, Xinemus and Ioyukus are described in detail, and bits and pieces are given for others such as Conphas, Istriya, Saubon, Gothyelk, Sarcellus, Maithenet, the two Mandatti Qurom members, Eleazaras, etc.

Again, I'm not seeing a huge discrepancy in comparison to other fantasy series here. Its easy to miss the descriptions and details sometimes. For example, I'm sure Erikson gives a description of Bottle at some point but I can't remember the details for the life of me.

Dolorous Menhir;205107 said:

I didn't notice that level of conflict between the faiths. I thought it was just a straight not-Christian/not-Islam battle with the names changed and not much else.

The Fanim and the Inithri are clearly derived from Islam and Christianity true, but it isn't a straight transfer. Inithrism combines monotheism and polytheism, God and Gods, and I know Islam never had a tribe of eyeless sorceror priests. The main dispute between the Fanim and the Inithri is the difference between the Solitary God of the Fanim and the Gods of the Inithri.

Dolorous Menhir;205107 said:

I would've liked more detail, especially about the Mandate Schoolmen. And I don't understand why Kellhus could use magic without the mark of the Few.

Achamian explained it - Kellhus will show the Mark eventually but it takes time for it to become visible. New sorcerors have a faint Mark or none at all. Older sorcerors have a deeper Mark, corresponding to how often they've employed sorcery. The more a person uses sorcery, the more visible the Mark.

Dolorous Menhir;205288 said:

Erikson has plenty of philosophy, it's true, but it is not the only thing going on in the books. You don't read Erikson and think "wow, all that was just a tedious excuse to include lots of philosophy that would be more suited to an academic discussion."

People can, and have argued, that Erikson puts too much philosophy in the mouths of his characters. That's a fair criticism, and it is strengthened by the fact that Erikson has other things going on in his novels. His characters actually change and develop. The strong are capable of losing. The weak can actually achieve something. New depths can be revealed, and we can be genuinely shocked or affected by what he does to his people (Coltaine, for example). Having a bunch of soldiers meditate on the nature of war and civilisation over and over again can be a distraction from a genuinely entertaining and gripping story.

With Bakker, it is clearly all just an excuse for him to play out his philosophical ideas. Now that is all well and good, many writers want to make a point or promote a viewpoint. They just do a competent job of writing a decent story around that aim. Bakker does not.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I don't agree entirely, I think it comes down to personal taste, but it's a fair criticism.

[No-God]

Okay, I'm not going to waste my time arguing, because we have another thread for it, and if the threadstarter wishes to debate this novel, he may refer to that other thread.

You're right; Bakker doesn't know how to tell a story. At least, he chooses not to tell a story using the common way of doing it. For me, his novels are still extremely gripping and emotionally powerful, and his characterization is absolutely untouchable. His dark poetic prose and his fantastic use of symbolism simply add to the novels.

That said, I can understand why some people wouldn't like it. It's not a conventional story, and that's clearly turned you off, because that's the first thing you brought up in your criticism. If philosophy bores you, then that, as well, would be a flaw. I love philosophy myself and majored in it in University, but I don't believe you have to be a philosophy major to enjoy the books. This is extremely basic, simple philosophy he uses, so as to not go "over one's head", so to speak. He uses his philosophy to explain the concepts and state of mind of the characters in the story, obviously so effected by a brutal Holy War.

As far as your examples on each "part" of Bakker's story, well, I completely disagree. You're discrediting his writing and his respecting his talent. I suppose it really boils down to, if it's that simple and easy, why didn't you write it? You're over-simplifying it so that it supports your argument. Again, I'm not going to bother argue each point because it's much personal preference than anything else.

You read the book, and you're now looking for things to criticise, and if it's not there, you'll create one. This whole post of yours, we've been through. You've simply tried to get a rise from us, so it's really pointless for me to respond in length.

It's a book of concepts and confusing names. If you can't grasp the concepts, or if you couldn't remember the names (during the battles, people you haven't heard of don't show up - you simply don't remember them), that's no fault of the author. I can remember them, and I grasp the concepts, so it's your fault and yours alone.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that it's all personal preference and some people like some books and not others. That doesn't explain why you decide to criticise it over and over again, then repeat past arguments in order to get a rise out of fans of the specific novels. You take 'not liking' a novel beyond that, because criticising a book is one thing. But I wonder your goal in this matter, because it's more than just criticising the books - there's nothing new here, and I imagine you've read it all your previous responses.

But anyway, like it or hate it, it really doesn't matter to me what you decide. Or already have decided, which is partially why you aren't worth debating with. You're set in your stance and you won't hear of any differences. Much like I am.

The Warrior-Prophet is one of my top 3 books of all time, and I've read a ton of books - fantasy and other genres - so, regardless what you have to say about the novel, obviously Bakker did something right.

[No-God]

Dolorous Menhir;205288 said:

Using the glossary to provide additional background is also fine, but not as a substitute for providing necessary information within the story. I'm perfectly happy to read some fleshed-out historical detail or character biography after I'm done with the story. I'm not happy to have to refer to the glossary just to find out who a character is, what side they are on, etc.

You shouldn't have had to use the glossary. I didn't, and I understood the book fine.

[Werthead]

Quote

3. The Backstory - I didn't bother to read the so called Encyclopaedic glossary, because like DM says, I prefer authors that use the narrative to eliminate the need for homework (like dear old SE)... BUT, I loved the hints of how the non-men were destroyed by plague, that the Inchoroi came from the skies in a spaceship-city. That the non-men seem to have lost the ability to feel and consider pain and perverse sexual acts a way to 'be real' or some such. I also love how he has kept huge swaths of history tentative and unknown while hinting at the Celmomian Prophecy/ Heron Spear/ a mission to the Inchoroi Ship itself etc.

Wasn't it the Inchoroi who used the perverse sexual acts? Their Non-men allies/slaves/whatever were standing around at that moment, but it was the Inchoroi itself that performed the acts.

The glossary was pretty good and it's easy to see why he kept it seperate: a lot of the stuff is pretty incidental to the narrative itself. However, without the glossary TTT would have been what, 350 pages long? I agree that perhaps he should have re-structured the first two books to get the whole story done in two novels and left the glossary for his website or something. I'm also hoping that he keeps to his plan for The Aspect-Emperor to be a duology and not, as he has hinted, let it expand to a trilogy. Pat's forthcoming interview should clarify this.