|
There are generally enough clues to figure out how the chronology works. Karsa's stuff in that book is essentially a prologue, after that it meets up with the timeline you're expecting.
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
NovemberMike posted:There are generally enough clues to figure out how the chronology works. Karsa's stuff in that book is essentially a prologue, after that it meets up with the timeline you're expecting. Yeah, I'm getting to the point where I'm recognizing stuff from past books (Finding the Silanda) and it's really great.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Oh my loving god, how did it take me so long to realize Who Karsa is? I just got to the reveal that the guy he's with is Leoman, and they're going to meet Sha'ik, and my mind just blew out the back of my skull
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:Oh my loving god, how did it take me so long to realize Who Karsa is? I just got to the reveal that the guy he's with is Leoman, and they're going to meet Sha'ik, and my mind just blew out the back of my skull Yea, those weaving connections between the books are great, and such a change from the linear nature of most series I've read. That's also one of the things that makes an eventual reread intriguing; think of how much you may pick up that you missed the first time around.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:Oh my loving god, how did it take me so long to realize Who Karsa is? I just got to the reveal that the guy he's with is Leoman, and they're going to meet Sha'ik, and my mind just blew out the back of my skull See, I told you the chronology was easy to figure out once you've got enough of the pieces. One of the amazing things about this series is how complicated he makes everything, but how it's all self consistent. People here were making really good predictions based on how the rules of the magic system work. Everything tends to come together intuitively.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
I think the series is even better the 2nd time, and you sure as poo poo will notice things you missed the first time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Bluedust posted:Author seems kind of a dick though. I find interviews with him hilarious. He has this bloated, poorly edited (albeit very enjoyable) 10 book fantasy series about his Dungeons and Dragons campaign and he constantly talks about the series as having true literary value and being a work of art with a straight face and no sense of irony because his characters awkwardly ramble on about mostly nonsense philosophy for 10 pages at a time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
The best part of that is the self philosophizing is easily the worst part out of all the books. The series would actually be better if he didn't try and make them "literary masterpieces".
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
While Erikson does come off as conceited and rambles too much about the literary concepts of his series in interviews, I don't think it's fair to say that it has no true literary value or isn't art just because it's fantasy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
savinhill posted:While Erikson does come off as conceited and rambles too much about the literary concepts of his series in interviews, I don't think it's fair to say that it has no true literary value or isn't art just because it's fantasy. Oh I wouldn't say that it has no value, it obviously does. I just think the series would be held in higher regard if it didn't try to be something it's not.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
savinhill posted:While Erikson does come off as conceited and rambles too much about the literary concepts of his series in interviews, I don't think it's fair to say that it has no true literary value or isn't art just because it's fantasy. The issue is that series are rarely of literary importance because the characters philosophize.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:The issue is that series are rarely of literary importance because the characters philosophize. The issue is that neither Erikson nor anyone else (who's not trolling) has ever claimed that the series may have literary importance because the characters philosophize. It's a ridiculous claim used to support some other ridiculous claim. When you start from ridiculous premises, your conclusion are going to be even more ridiculous. Same as those saying the series is "trying to be something it's not". That should read like: "trying to be something I don't want it to be".
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
It's a book about dragons.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:It's a book about dragons. I guess your personal dictionary teaches you: Dragons != literature
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I guess your personal dictionary teaches you: Dragons != literature That's right, though I'm sure you'll bring up Lord of the Rings (basically unreadable) and Beowulf (millennia old). It's an enjoyable fantasy series about dragons and wizards that's hindered by the great many philosophical ramblings that should have been edited and unnecessary storylines that went nowhere that should have been cut.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
If you can't read LOTR then that's kind of sad
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
I dunno, I enjoyed the philosophizing characters and storylines that went nowhere because they all contributed to give the world depth and atmosphere. It never mattered to me exactly what a character's internal monologue was describing, what I enjoyed was the tone those monologues set, how they often put me in the mindset of the character I was reading or at the very least informed me of what thoughts and worries they were preoccupied by. Stories like the Snake in DoD didn't add a ton to the plot progression but they did give me a sense of the world's scale and even made the world feel realistic. The feel of the books, and not the dragons or the wizards or magic, are what got me to read all ten of these books and keep reading them.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
I think what makes the magic work is that it's not just, 'well he's a wizard, that's why,' there's crazy depth to how it works and it's all explained and everything like that. At least that's how it seems to me so far.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Erikson's inconsistency is the problem for me. Sometimes he is able to balance the fantastic and meditative sections perfectly, and other times it comes off as a mishmash. Same with his interviews- sometimes he's humble and accommodating, but other times he comes across as an arrogant dick.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Levitate posted:If you can't read LOTR then that's kind of sad Why is it sad? I dont enjoy 20 page poems and songs. No writer has ever made them interesting to me. But marines philosophizing is fine with me.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Juaguocio posted:Erikson's inconsistency is the problem for me. Sometimes he is able to balance the fantastic and meditative sections perfectly, and other times it comes off as a mishmash. Same with his interviews- sometimes he's humble and accommodating, but other times he comes across as an arrogant dick. Yeah, that was basically my problem as well. His characterization is another example of that. Sometime he hits it out of the park but many of the supporting characters seem to share the same vocabulary and constant reflection prattle. I think it's most apparent amongst the Malazan soldiers but there's a fair amount of ennui in the Nimander stuff as well. Oh well, Erikson usually manages to bring it all together for the climaxes and ties up the major plot threads well enough. I have no idea what hes like in real life and don't really care, I just wish he would listen to his editor a bit more. His actual world building is incredibly well done though so I can forgive the flaws. quote:I dunno, I enjoyed the philosophizing characters and storylines that went nowhere because they all contributed to give the world depth and atmosphere. It never mattered to me exactly what a character's internal monologue was describing, what I enjoyed was the tone those monologues set, how they often put me in the mindset of the character I was reading or at the very least informed me of what thoughts and worries they were preoccupied by. Stories like the Snake in DoD didn't add a ton to the plot progression but they did give me a sense of the world's scale and even made the world feel realistic. The feel of the books, and not the dragons or the wizards or magic, are what got me to read all ten of these books and keep reading them. Sure that's a fair point. I just couldn't shake the feeling that they many of them felt too similar and some seemed unnecessary as a result. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 06:25 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Can someone possibly give me a however detailed they want explanation of the difference between an ascendant and a god? Also, in House of Chains, finding out that the Seven were T'Lan Imass before it was explicitly stated made me feel pretty cool 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:Can someone possibly give me a however detailed they want explanation of the difference between an ascendant and a god? An ascendant gets a place in the Deck of Dragons, whereas a god is more part of an organized cult, with followers and everything. An ascendant can become a god, take Shadowthrone for example, who's first ascendant and then god. Imho, one is more "loose", while the other is a more organized, structured form. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 06:29 on May 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Gods and Ascendants are both powerful people/beings, but gods have worshipers and accept them, Ascendants dont have worshipers. Or have few and dont accept them (like Anomander Rake). That's basically the difference. There was a much more detailed explanation earlier in this thread, maybe someone can go fish it out. Abalieno posted:An ascendant gets a place in the Deck of Dragons, whereas a god is more part of an organized cult, with followers and everything. An ascendant can become a good, take Shadowthrone for example, who's first ascendant and then god. No, not every ascendant has a place in the deck of dragons. Just most of the ones we are exposed to do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Okay, sorry I'm plaguing you guys with questions, but I have a rather specific one about House of Chains that might not be answerable without spoiling stuff - Shadowthrone and Cotillion were just talking on the drifting isle about the guy Traveller, and mentioned he's Dal Honese, and the Aspalar was saying he was someone who was with them at the beginning...I went back to where Admiral Nok was talking to Tavore, and he was bringing up people, and the only one mentioned as being specifically as a Dal Honese is someone named Dassem Ultor. So is that who Traveller is, and if so, who is he and what is his significance? Also, Is the guy that Karsa and the Nom guy met in the tower with all the fossils much earlier in the book Cartheron Crust?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:Okay, sorry I'm plaguing you guys with questions, but I have a rather specific one about House of Chains that might not be answerable without spoiling stuff - Shadowthrone and Cotillion were just talking on the drifting isle about the guy Traveller, and mentioned he's Dal Honese, and the Aspalar was saying he was someone who was with them at the beginning...I went back to where Admiral Nok was talking to Tavore, and he was bringing up people, and the only one mentioned as being specifically as a Dal Honese is someone named Dassem Ultor. So is that who Traveller is, and if so, who is he and what is his significance? 1. You are in for a treat~ 2. It's one of the Crust brothers. Which precisely completely escapes me, but you are on the right track, yes
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:Okay, sorry I'm plaguing you guys with questions, but I have a rather specific one about House of Chains that might not be answerable without spoiling stuff - Shadowthrone and Cotillion were just talking on the drifting isle about the guy Traveller, and mentioned he's Dal Honese, and the Aspalar was saying he was someone who was with them at the beginning...I went back to where Admiral Nok was talking to Tavore, and he was bringing up people, and the only one mentioned as being specifically as a Dal Honese is someone named Dassem Ultor. So is that who Traveller is, and if so, who is he and what is his significance? 1. Yes, that's Dassem. You'll find out his significance later. 2. That's Urko Crust, his brother.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:
Urko
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers! I really like the pacing/tone of this book a lot, and it has a perfect balance of POVs and people crossing each other's paths, and tons of puzzle pieces falling into place. I really like this part I'm at with Karsa and Cynnigig.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Hondo82 posted:No, not every ascendant has a place in the deck of dragons. Just most of the ones we are exposed to do. Hmm, I'm no so sure this is the case. How would an ascendant acquire ascendant powers if not through the system? I do understand a god who's not automatically into the deck, because the power comes from the beliefs of his followers, but ascendants with no followers where do they get their powers? It's not like one snaps his fingers and decides to be an ascendant that day. Yeah I read books. posted:Also, Is the guy that Karsa and the Nom guy met in the tower with all the fossils much earlier in the book Cartheron Crust? You should know where Cartheron Crust is, it is revealed in MoI. He's the captain of the ship that Kalam takes toward the end of DG to reach Malaz City.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Hmm, I'm no so sure this is the case. How would an ascendant acquire ascendant powers if not through the system? I do understand a god who's not automatically into the deck, because the power comes from the beliefs of his followers, but ascendants with no followers where do they get their powers? You become an ascendent by being a gigantic badass. The Deck is completely unrelated, it's more of a loose alliance or agreement than a source of power.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:00
|
|
|
I wouldn't say it's any sort of 'alliance' or 'agreement' at all - to me that implies a cooperation between ascendants - but rather its own separate 'force' reflecting parts of the real world (usually in the form of annoying riddles).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
the least weasel posted:I wouldn't say it's any sort of 'alliance' or 'agreement' at all - to me that implies a cooperation between ascendants - but rather its own separate 'force' reflecting parts of the real world (usually in the form of annoying riddles). IIRC you have to opt in and it restricts you in certain ways.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
How so? I don't remember that at all.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
the least weasel posted:How so? I don't remember that at all. I don't remember exactly where, but somehow when the Crippled God gets his house, it ends up restricting what he can do. I think Paran or Mael mention that he has to follow the rules then.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
The Deck of Dragons contains people who aren't necessarily Ascendants like Lostara Yil, Trull Sengar, and Karsa Orlong and then does not contain everyone who is a named Ascendant. It's a way of ordering the major players in the world, be they elemental forces, gods, Ascendants, or mortals.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
It has to do with the Deck, Ganoes acting as Master and assigning the dude to a house enforces the magical conventions (?) that govern the others, thereby limiting the Crippled God's abilities somehow. That's what I took away with it. I don't remember anything about CG "opting in" to anything.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Didn't it have a lot to do with the Crippled God poisoning the warrens? By giving him a place in the Deck of Dragons it protected the warrens from his degrading influence. Also I'm pretty sure the Crippled God himself did want a House in the Deck, and Paran agreed to it because it would make him a "player in the game" who could lose like anyone else. Been a while since I read Memories of Ice but I'm pretty sure that's how it went.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:
Ah crap I knew there were two people that were "drowned" but I forgot the other one's name, and totally fogot about that scene The Ninth Layer posted:Didn't it have a lot to do with the Crippled God poisoning the warrens? By giving him a place in the Deck of Dragons it protected the warrens from his degrading influence. Also I'm pretty sure the Crippled God himself did want a House in the Deck, and Paran agreed to it because it would make him a "player in the game" who could lose like anyone else. Been a while since I read Memories of Ice but I'm pretty sure that's how it went. The specific wording was Allowing him to have a legit house would restrict him to the rules that everyone else has to play by
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Abalieno posted:Hmm, I'm no so sure this is the case. How would an ascendant acquire ascendant powers if not through the system? I do understand a god who's not automatically into the deck, because the power comes from the beliefs of his followers, but ascendants with no followers where do they get their powers? As for the 'alliance' or 'agreement' aspect of it, I always felt of ascendants' power being like gravity. The more powerful you are, the more personal gravity you pull around (throwing your weight around  ) the more "smaller bodies" are attracted to them, as well as "heavier" ones.
coyo7e fucked around with this message at 22:54 on May 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 22:52
|
|
