|
To be fair, naming characters things like Picker or Fiddler is something straight out of Black Company, which Erikson clearly was a huge fan of. Anyway, I've been wondering: is there any difference, appreciable or otherwise, between a god and an ascendant?
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:Anyway, I've been wondering: is there any difference, appreciable or otherwise, between a god and an ascendant? Gods have worshipers, ascendants do not. Anomander Rake is considered an ascendant, though he does have worshipers he doesn't acknowledge/accept them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
So I read the first four books over a year ago and wanted to start reading things again. From what I gather, book 5 is the start of Major Plot Thread #3, and book 6 brings things together. Will I be completely lost once I get to book 6? Is there a site that has summaries of the books (at least 1-4)? Should I just start over at the beginning?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:If the names aren't off-putting because they came straight off an apostrophe happy random name generator, they are off-putting because they are too simple, either because they were named after the first thing Erikson saw on his desk, or because they encapsulate some essence of the character: You don't like the noun names but you do like Caladan Brood? Brood? All fantasy books have made-up names, some are better and some are worse, why is it impossible to go 20 pages without the resurrection of this dumb topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Praesil posted:So I read the first four books over a year ago and wanted to start reading things again. From what I gather, book 5 is the start of Major Plot Thread #3, and book 6 brings things together. Depends on how much you remember I guess. Book 6 picks up right were 4 ended, so if you don't remember much of the first four it might not be a bad idea to reread. In fact, you will probably get a lot more out of the series the second time around. Regarding the names, the reason some names are lovely and others aren't is because the lovely-named people are generally Malazan peasants or some other non-noble. They have bad names because they're unpretentious nobodies. Surly was Surly before she became Empress, and then she was Lasseen. Ganoes and Felisin Paran have flowery names because they're descended from nobility. The Ninth Layer fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:If the names aren't off-putting because they came straight off an apostrophe happy random name generator, they are off-putting because they are too simple, either because they were named after the first thing Erikson saw on his desk, or because they encapsulate some essence of the character: A lot of this was based on how the old Jewish (and other groups) had names based on random meanings. You'd have names that were effectively "deer" or "she is mine". The whole concept of choosing from a pre-determined list of names isn't necessarily something that's always been around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:If the names aren't off-putting because they came straight off an apostrophe happy random name generator, they are off-putting because they are too simple, either because they were named after the first thing Erikson saw on his desk, or because they encapsulate some essence of the character: You are criticizing Charles Dickens, you know? quote:How do you create your fictive characters? Do you occasionally glance at real persons in your surroundings, and incorporate traits from them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
I've been wondering why Memories of Ice is the only Malazan TPB not available on Amazon, and I'm starting to think it might be because it was a behemoth of a book. I just got House of Chains, and at ~670 pages it's thicker than the 900 page Peter the Great: His Life and World. Amazon says the MoI TPB was thicker than The Great Book of Amber, which is 1300 pages to MoI's 780ish. Someone tell Tor that they can actually make pages thinner now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:You are criticizing Charles Dickens, you know? I friggin' hate Dickens, but I wasn't saying that you couldn't use names that have associated meanings. I was pointing out how much going from crazy fantasy names to those simple names clashed for me. I liked the names in Hunger Games--almost everything is sounds like some kind of food or plant, or has a name like Effie Trinket gives you a reminder of how shallow they are. My opinion is that Erikson makes a lot of choices that unnecessarily alienates some readers. His books, his choices. I still read them, but I can see why it is a turn off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Praesil posted:So I read the first four books over a year ago and wanted to start reading things again. From what I gather, book 5 is the start of Major Plot Thread #3, and book 6 brings things together. Malazan Reread of the Fallen They're almost done with Midnight Tides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:I've been wondering why Memories of Ice is the only Malazan TPB not available on Amazon, and I'm starting to think it might be because it was a behemoth of a book. I just got House of Chains, and at ~670 pages it's thicker than the 900 page Peter the Great: His Life and World. Amazon says the MoI TPB was thicker than The Great Book of Amber, which is 1300 pages to MoI's 780ish. I was just looking at my MoI trade paperback last night and thinking of how enormous it is. Not bad for $14.95.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
I finished writing a small piece on Lovecraft and Erikson (on Midnight Tides): http://loopingworld.com/2012/02/01/midnight-tides-and-lovecraftian-gods/ I'm wondering if I'm the only one accusing Erikson of playing conservative and not being enough EPIC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:I friggin' hate Dickens, but I wasn't saying that you couldn't use names that have associated meanings. I was pointing out how much going from crazy fantasy names to those simple names clashed for me. Different cultures have different naming conventions. It'd be odder if people from opposite sides of the globe had similar names really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
Hondo82 posted:Gods have worshipers, ascendants do not. Anomander Rake is considered an ascendant, though he does have worshipers he doesn't acknowledge/accept them. To clarify, gods have many worshippers while ascendants may have a few - gotta start somewhere, after all. In MoI, they show that Treach had worshippers before being recognized as a god of war, and there may be other examples I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
If any series needs an encyclopedia published, it's this one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:To clarify, gods have many worshippers while ascendants may have a few - gotta start somewhere, after all. In MoI, they show that Treach had worshippers before being recognized as a god of war, and there may be other examples I'm forgetting. I'm curious how something like Hood's Gates came into being if most (all?) gods came into being as mortals. I suppose the mechanisms were already in place, Hood just took control of them. Or it's only a myth that all dead people pass through Hood's Gates. I'm only halfway through MoI though and this is already been touched on a little bit, so I'm guessing there will be at least a bit more about it in the books to come.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Lyer posted:If any series needs an encyclopedia published, it's this one. Wasn't there a goon-run Malazan wiki? Hood's balls or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
So I just finished House of Chains. I'm a little bit conflicted. On the one hand, Karsa and everything to do with his plotline was seven shades of awesome, on the other hand everything else felt like a LOT of build up with very little payoff. The final standoff is decided by a bunch of Talon assassins who show up out of nowhere, and Tavore's army never even needs to directly attack the Whirlwind (with the notable exception of Tavore herself). I also thought the entire Cutter/Apsalar plotline could've been excised from the book without it being any the worse for it. I don't know, I just feel like this would be a book better on the second read, so that all the running around random warrens and seeing bizarre mythological creatures would make sense and I would already know more about the dozen or so not-Bridgeburners added to to cast and could appreciate their origin story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Unfortunately or not, how House of Chains is written pretty much sets the structure for how the rest of the books are written, except for the little payoff bit. And the storyline and cast of it pretty much becomes the main one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Unfortunately or not, how House of Chains is written pretty much sets the structure for how the rest of the books are written, except for the little payoff bit. And the storyline and cast of it pretty much becomes the main one. The ending of House of Chains becomes a lot better in retrospective though. It's one of the many reasons Malazan is better read a second time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:Wasn't there a goon-run Malazan wiki? Hood's balls or something? Yeah, I think the domain owner went AWOL, the domain appears to be unregistered again so I think I'll grab it. There's also Enyclopedia Malazica but the quality is really hit and miss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Popular Human posted:So I just finished House of Chains. I'm a little bit conflicted. On the one hand, Karsa and everything to do with his plotline was seven shades of awesome, on the other hand everything else felt like a LOT of build up with very little payoff. The final standoff is decided by a bunch of Talon assassins who show up out of nowhere, and Tavore's army never even needs to directly attack the Whirlwind (with the notable exception of Tavore herself). I also thought the entire Cutter/Apsalar plotline could've been excised from the book without it being any the worse for it. The one major problem with these books from house of chains on is that they're about 10% stuff that should have been cut. They're good enough that you can work through the stuff that should have been cut and there is a good payoff, but he still needs an editor willing to be a bit more aggressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Seriously, I felt the whole Felisin the second arc really has no place since the plot thread didn't go anywhere with it later on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
^^^ I took it as kind of a redemptive arc but yeah, I didn't like it. I didn't like most of the Felisin arc, it's just hate piled on bad feelings piled on misery and suffering and injustice and pride.pakman posted:Regarding Hoc holy crap Crokus is an assassin now instead of just a thief, and is on a mission for Cotillion. the least weasel posted:No, they weren't, pakman specifically said Heboric. When exactly do they cut off Rath'Fener's hands again? coyo7e fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Feb 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:
I think this was intentional. He's trying to be tough and names himself "Cutter", but it's a joke on him because cutter is the nickname for a surgeon. People trying to act tough in this series generally backfires. One of Karsa Orlong's most badass moments is when somebody keeps on insulting him and he just doesn't care because he just knows he's too badass for the insults to be right. Similarly, Bugg and Tehol act like fools but they come off as some of the most amazing characters in the series.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:IIRC, at the end of MoI, they do it. But since nobody's home at the place they are sent, they end up getting picked up by something infinitely alien, otherworldly and very, very nasty. There's a moment of anagnorsis when Rath'Fenar (and I think everyone else too) realize what's happening, and I think someone decided to have mercy and finish him off first, or at least tried to. It all happened at the very climax of MoI when poo poo really hit the fan. Oooh, yeah you're right, I'd forgotten about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
I really wonder what one would cut from HoC. Erikson has the opposite problem, too gnarled prose, not enough slice of life scenes that make one acclimate. Well, if that 10% is because you don't like Felisin arc, I'm REALLY, REALLY glad that you aren't the one who makes the cuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I really wonder what one would cut from HoC. Erikson has the opposite problem, too gnarled prose, not enough slice of life scenes that make one acclimate. It's not a problem with the specific book, it's just a general issue he has. There are quite a few sections that kind of drag on and could benefit from a little effort to make things more concise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
I'll never understand that. I can't say what happens on books 6 onward, but Erikson's economy of words is a flaw he has, not the contrary. GRRM is infinitely more "wordy" than Erikson, to not even consider someone like Sanderson, who makes redundancy a "feature". Abercrombie is more wordy. Rothfuss? Really? All current popular writers are tenfold more wordy than Erikson. And that's one reason why people LOVE them. The only one writer in Fantasy whose prose is more concise than Erikson would be Glen Cook. And that's an extreme case (and in fact his prose is disliked by many readers because it's /too/ concise and plain). So whenever I read someone complaining about length, I believe it's a result of misconception. For example there are some who think the Chain of Dogs would have worked better on its own. Erikson actually annoys MANY readers because his prose doesn't fit the genre conventions. In Fantasy you usually have lush, immersive descriptions and full-on character introspection, Erikson barely describes at all. He doesn't describe clothes to the extreme of Jordan, but often you even miss basic character features. So I think that the perceived problem is different. That Erikson fragments the narration in a myriad of PoVs, and these are hard to manage for the reader. So the desire that some scenes would be cut. It's a problem of overflow, and there's so much to manage that to the reader a number of these become superfluous (even if they aren't). But it's one thing to ask that entire scenes to be cut, and another to ask that these scenes should be written more tightly. I don't think it's possible to write more tightly than how Erikson already does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
It's not that his language is to flowery or he is too wordy in his descriptions like GRRM is at times - the problem is rather that some plot lines are too drawn out, some feel completely unnecessary and at other times he delves too deeply into philosophical discussions (the abundance of wise, world-weary soldiers who are willing to discuss the futility of war and life off-cuff in the world is at times astonishing  ). Every book features a lot of people wandering around to get to some place for the big finale. Of these wanderings some feel simply too drawn out or flat-out uninteresting. These are the parts that could need some tightening, not his style of writing itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
HoC: So the Teblor gods are T'lan Imass. And they make their weapons from flint found in Jhad Ohdan? The Jhagut homeland? Why aren't the Teblor gods part of the ritual. Karsa says they are unbound, or does that only mean to the Cripppled God now that Karsa is the Knight of Chains. I am very confused. Also, how/why did that simple interaction with Mappo and Icarium warned of by the D'iver wolves destroy the world. Is it because Icarium broke Karsa's bloodsword and now he's going to be making a new one? Is it because he release the Jhagut he found withing the Tellan warren? I would have expected something more "significant" to come from that simple section in that chapter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 14:13
|
|
|
pakman posted:HoC: I think most of this gets answered later. They were part of the ritual, they were undead/immortal, but T'lan Imass who get beat up too much, too broken, get severed from their Vow to war against the jaghut. That's how they are "unbound." There was no world destroying when Karsa and Icarium met because they both ended up unconscious. But there could've been if Mappo didn't intercede. When Icarium enters a mindless rage stuff gets broken, like cities and continents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Hondo82 posted:I think most of this gets answered later. They were part of the ritual, they were undead/immortal, but T'lan Imass who get beat up too much, too broken, get severed from their Vow to war against the jaghut. That's how they are "unbound." I guess I just didn't put two and two together then. I knew about the "looking out to etenity" when they get too destroyed. I forget where it was mentioned, though, possibly even Onrack, but it may have been before that in MoI somewhere. I guess, then, that the Teblor gods were laid to rest in the lands of the Teblor and conspired to make themselves gods to the people that inhabited that area. Karsa also undid all the work that the Logros T'lan Imass did to the Jhagut in the Omtose Phellack (i think) warren. I know he travelled through Telann, but the Jhagut female he released said something about Omtose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I think this was intentional. He's trying to be tough and names himself "Cutter", but it's a joke on him because cutter is the nickname for a surgeon. People trying to act tough in this series generally backfires. One of Karsa Orlong's most badass moments is when somebody keeps on insulting him and he just doesn't care because he just knows he's too badass for the insults to be right. Similarly, Bugg and Tehol act like fools but they come off as some of the most amazing characters in the series. Becoming Cutter actually made him less interesting to me, and the whole romance/not-romance thing with Apsalar really fell flat to me as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Decius posted:It's not that his language is to flowery or he is too wordy in his descriptions like GRRM is at times - the problem is rather that some plot lines are too drawn out, some feel completely unnecessary and at other times he delves too deeply into philosophical discussions (the abundance of wise, world-weary soldiers who are willing to discuss the futility of war and life off-cuff in the world is at times astonishing Then the discussion is less about writing style and more about structure. Malazan has a very deliberate structure. An editor, good or not, has no right to make arbitrary cuts to a text. What he CAN do is persuade a writer that certain scenes could be cut. He may succeed or not. Ultimately it's the writer's choice, so the writer is to blame, not the editor. Erikson has stated various times that he isn't in any way deliberately padding the narrative. He said that if he knew how to do things differently, he'd do it. At the same time he also said that he has his reasons for doing certain things, and that readers should have faith. In the Malazan series a scene that seems completely irrelevant can have a significant impact two books later. This is also why it gets better on rereads: because you suddenly notice a myriad of details and significant parts that you just couldn't properly grasp on a first read. So, again, this structure is deliberate and is part of what makes some readers love the series. Its complexity and intricacy. For certain readers even the 8+ PoVs in ASOIAF are too many to make for a comfortable read. That's why most of fiction is in 1st person or about a couple main protagonists. But I'm thankful that we have Malazan the way it is, with no compromises. It's what the writer wanted and I wouldn't have it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
I disagree, I would rather have it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Abaliano, you really need to read the rest of the series before you continue to defend Erikson like this. Books 7-10 are the main reason why many of us feel that his writing is overly wordy and drawn out. He does not tie things together as well as you think he is going to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Juaguocio posted:Abaliano, you really need to read the rest of the series before you continue to defend Erikson like this. Books 7-10 are the main reason why many of us feel that his writing is overly wordy and drawn out. In fact I was replying to someone who said this starts in HoC. As far as MT I see no trace of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Just started Midnight Tides - tell me i'm not the only one who initially got Baruk from GotM and Buruk the Pale confused and thought they were somehow the same character because their names are so drat similar. I can also tell from just the first hundred pages that i'm really going to enjoy reading every chapter with Tehol and Bugg in it. They're like a fantasy novel version of Sterling Archer and his butler. Popular Human fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Feb 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Yeah Bugg especially owns bones. To be honest, Baruk was so fuckin long ago that my brain has like, dumped a lot of character names out of immediate recall space so I didn't make the juxtaposition. The end of Midnight Tides is fuckin sweeeeeeet. If you find yourself gettin bored in the middle just remember. Fuckin sweet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 19:47
|
|
