|
I have a world map based on Wert's one: The names are a bit off, but Lether is the big continent on the lower left.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Cool map! Here's cover art for the next Esslemont novel. Hopefully we get an updated blurb. The last one was... pretty bad.  I'm looking forward to the PSPublishing cover art too. Hopefully they'll keep the same artist and nautical theme!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Orb, Sceptre, Throne is such a bad name. So is City in the Jungle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 10:21
|
|
|
What characters will be ruined in this one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:What characters will be ruined in this one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Don't forget Lady Envy and Fisher I think they're still there, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
That's pretty depressing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
Probably some new, bland-to-slightly-interesting characters, like Ivanr in SW. And some carryover from his other books too probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Every time I peek into this thread I'm re-convinced that letting Esslemont's books rot on a shelf is better than actually reading them. Maybe I'll build up the courage to find out some day. Speaking of spin-off Malazan books, though, has anyone read the Bauchelain and Korbal Broach stuff? Is it worth reading?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Wallet posted:Every time I peek into this thread I'm re-convinced that letting Esslemont's books rot on a shelf is better than actually reading them. Maybe I'll build up the courage to find out some day. If you liked the two characters in Memories of Ice and SE's deadpan humour, than yeah they worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:If you liked the two characters in Memories of Ice and SE's deadpan humour, than yeah they worth it. Erikson's humor is probably my favorite part of the series. There's not a lot of fantasy authors that manage to switch between funny and depressing so smoothly. I don't remember there being enough to have any opinion on the characters, though. Guess I'll give it a shot. As far as Esslemont goes is he really just loving terrible or is he terrible next to Erikson?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Wallet posted:As far as Esslemont goes is he really just loving terrible or is he terrible next to Erikson? We've been spoiled with Erikson, and the world he built is so freaking amazing in so many ways... Now we watch a writer half as good try to not gently caress up the characters and world setting that we know so well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:We've been spoiled with Erikson, and the world he built is so freaking amazing in so many ways... Now we watch a writer half as good try to not gently caress up the characters and world setting that we know so well. Yeah, that's what makes me afraid to read them. Anyone who reads much fantasy can't possibly be afraid of a lovely book, but I don't want to ruin Erikson's work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Wallet posted:Speaking of spin-off Malazan books, though, has anyone read the Bauchelain and Korbal Broach stuff? Is it worth reading? Best stuff Erikson wrote, imo. Especially The Lees of Laughter's End. A bit like Pratchett with a venomous satiric streak (The Healthy Dead). The first one is mostly testing the water. The fourth is pure meta-narrative bliss. Not for everyone, obviously. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Sep 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 13:21
|
|
|
Wallet posted:As far as Esslemont goes is he really just loving terrible or is he terrible next to Erikson? I only read Night of Knives, which is passable and not particularly striking. It doesn't ruin Erikson's work in any possible way, it just lacks the same depth and is less self-conscious. Some readers who don't like Erikson's introspection even thinks the recent books of Esslemont are better than Erikson's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 13:23
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I only read Night of Knives, which is passable and not particularly striking. Return of the Crimson Guard was very much early to mid Erikson-esque. Stonewielder was a bit of a step backwards though. If we're listing the worst Malazan World books, they'd probably be (worst to best) Night of Knives, Stonewielder, Gardens of the Moon. RotCG would probably be closer to the top of the list than the bottom, somewhere solidly mid table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Question for you guys: I read the first book a while ago, went to my local bookstore to pick up Deadhouse Gates and saw they only had the 3rd and 4th books, which I ended up buying. Am I going to miss anything just starting on the third book, or should I wait and order the second book?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
Memories of Ice takes place at the same time as Deadhouse Gates so there's no direct overlap. You might get confused about some of the things that get explained in Deadhouse Gates like details of the warrens or Azath or the like but you will still be able to follow the plot. Definitely wait to read Deadhouse Gates before House of Chains.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Though Memories of Ice spoils a major plotline of Deadhouse Gates, not even half way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Reading HoC without DG would be doing both books a major disservice. Deadhouse Gates is one of the best books in the series I've read so far, and while you may be able to read MoI and understand it without reading DG, I can't say for certain that the plot of DG won't be spoiled for you. I don't know what Electronico is refering to, but I'll take his word for it and assume DG is spoiled in MoI. The ending of DG is probably my favorite few chapters in the series so far. It gets incredibly tense and knowing how it ends could be detrimental to your enjoyment of the book. It could be an interesting way to read them if it wasn't spoilery, as going from MoI's closing line (to break your hearts once more) into Deadhouse Gates would actually be a great transition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Pokeylope posted:Deadhouse Gates is one of the best books in the series I've read so far, and while you may be able to read MoI and understand it without reading DG, I can't say for certain that the plot of DG won't be spoiled for you. I don't know what Electronico is refering to, but I'll take his word for it and assume DG is spoiled in MoI. I'm talking about that it's revealed fairly early in MoI, that the Empress is behind it all. In Deadhouse Gates it'sthe conclusion of the journey of Kalam and Fiddler and the book. Not to mention the actual Chain of Dogs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Ah yes. I was thinking more specifically about the ending to the chain of dogs plot line. As that's the part of that book that really sticks out for me. Now that you mention it though, Kalam's plot would definitely suffer with that little bit of foreknowledge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Okay cool I'll see if I can find Deadhouse Gates off Amazon or something. The Malazan series isn't really too common in the bookstores I've been looking in. I really liked Gardens of the Moon but yeah the warrens etc. stuff was very confusing, so it'll probably help to have them explained a little better in DG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Okay cool I'll see if I can find Deadhouse Gates off Amazon or something. The Malazan series isn't really too common in the bookstores I've been looking in. I really liked Gardens of the Moon but yeah the warrens etc. stuff was very confusing, so it'll probably help to have them explained a little better in DG. For some reason every time I go into a used book store they have at least half the series. Might be worth checking if there's any you frequent. I got most of the books in hardcover for two bucks each or so. I payed the full anal-rape initial release price for the last one which probably negates any savings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
I enjoyed reading Esslemont even though he was obviously an inferior writer, just because after six months of reading Erikson I was getting a bit of sick of his meandering philosophical rants. About the point where I really couldn't hack it anymore was at the start of Reaper's Gale when the goddamn jailhouse torturer started debating the finer points of how we perceive reality with his torture-victim, and it was starting to enrage me how monumentally stupid that was. Then after taking a break to read Return of the Crimson Guard, I was refreshed and ready to tackle him again, having had a break from his style. Even though it's simpler, plainer fantasy, and there are some annoying characters, by the point where you start reading Esslemont, you'll already be deeply obsessed with the world because you'll be about five books deep into Erikson, and you'll enjoy getting every little extra clue/tidbit of information/piece of history you can. Also, it should be pointed out that while Night of Knives is kind of a piece of poo poo, it's pretty short, and his other books are a lot stronger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
02-6611-0142-1 posted:I enjoyed reading Esslemont even though he was obviously an inferior writer, just because after six months of reading Erikson I was getting a bit of sick of his meandering philosophical rants. About the point where I really couldn't hack it anymore was at the start of Reaper's Gale when the goddamn jailhouse torturer started debating the finer points of how we perceive reality with his torture-victim, and it was starting to enrage me how monumentally stupid that was. Then after taking a break to read Return of the Crimson Guard, I was refreshed and ready to tackle him again, having had a break from his style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
I just started Memories of Ice and oh my god was I stunned by the end of the first Quick Ben chapter. I mean holy poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
You mean where he turns out to be the high priest of Kurald Galain, an ascendent soletaken on equal footing with Anomander Rake, and he's been using his influence to put Whiskeyjack on the imperial throne? Okay, none of that is true, and I don't remember Quick's first chapter. In my defense, there are a hell of a lot of chapters to remember.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:You mean where he turns out to be the high priest of Kurald Galain, an ascendent soletaken on equal footing with Anomander Rake, and he's been using his influence to put Whiskeyjack on the imperial throne? Haha I had typed out what I meant but then my ipad deleted it and I didnt want to type it again.I mean the big reveal of the crippled god and the fact that Burn was dying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:You mean where he turns out to be the high priest of Kurald Galain, an ascendent soletaken on equal footing with Anomander Rake, and he's been using his influence to put Whiskeyjack on the imperial throne? One thing I have to ask... FULL SERIES SPOILER. DO NOT READ UNTIL DONE! Are you sure none of it is true? I mean, he's a former high priest of Meanas, but he's also something more, something much more linked to Kurald Galain itself, as we see when he appears in the start of Crippled God. He's also a soletaken, could quite possibly be on the same sort of footing as Anomander, and who knows what his real plans have been, what he's been using his influence to move towards? At one time putting Whiskeyjack on the throne probably was a plan of his. As for Ascendent, between all the various souls in him at least one would have been right from the start, whatever the tiste or pre-tiste hiding in him (the one that called Mother Dark mother and Draconus Father in Crippled God) is, it must be either an ascendent or something more. Plus he's a bridgeburner, and we know what happens to them! Before we say goodbye to the world of the Malazan Book of the Fallen once and for all, I'd be careful when claiming Quickben ISN'T anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
Masonity posted:One thing I have to ask...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
Masonity posted:FULL SERIES SPOILER. DO NOT READ UNTIL DONE! With the rampant speculation: what if quick Ben isn't a soletaken but a d'ivers and the Ben we know is the veered form of a greater whole? It explains why he is always hiding, there are more of him around and he doesn't want anyone important noticing he was in two places at once. And it explains his death at the end of DoD and how he got to Kolanse, one of him did die and another was already in the Kolanse area. And it explains how he knows so much, he's all over the place poking his noses in things. But what would his sembled form be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
LtSmash posted:With the rampant speculation: what if quick Ben isn't a soletaken but a d'ivers and the Ben we know is the veered form of a greater whole? It explains why he is always hiding, there are more of him around and he doesn't want anyone important noticing he was in two places at once. And it explains his death at the end of DoD and how he got to Kolanse, one of him did die and another was already in the Kolanse area. And it explains how he knows so much, he's all over the place poking his noses in things. But what would his sembled form be? Kruppe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:Kruppe. Quick Ben is a d'ivers mule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
Masonity posted:One thing I have to ask... Someone recently asked Erikson in one of the fan interviews if there are enough hints in the entire series to determine what Quick Ben is. Erikson's entire answer: "No."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 09:18
|
|
|
A Nice Boy posted:Someone recently asked Erikson in one of the fan interviews if there are enough hints in the entire series to determine what Quick Ben is. I think it's quite clear, especially given that di'ivers human mage in RotCG, that Quick Ben is Di'ivers god. All gods are merely a part of him, split. When he sembles back into his main the world becomes an atheist paradise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 11:11
|
|
|
I'm 150 pages into the first book. It's not making a lot of sense yet, and the prose hasn't flowed well enough to make up for that. So far, it has felt like a lot of fan-fictiony "T'Lak'Imdan'Norass of the Gen't'uki'l 24th Regulars was a real bad dude with ties to dark unknowable things". Does the narrative gel before the end of the first book, or is this one of those series where I have to read three or four books before it starts to get compelling or make any sense? I have the general impression that I'm reading Dragonball Z-as-fantasy novel; a bunch of filler and window-dressing to build up to meaningless episodic battles between BEINGS OF UNIMAGINABLE POWER  . Which I guess is fine, but when Erikson throws in the unearned mystique-by-deliberate-obfuscation, I'm left feeling like I don't care.Which isn't helped by Erikson's tin ear... there's one point early on where one grizzled magical assassin literally says to another grizzled magical assassin: "Be that way." Why do grizzled magical assassins talk like 16 year-old girls? 
Metonymy fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
The first book was written something like 10 years before the second and spent a lot of time being shopped around to different publishers. It improves with the second book, but yes, GOTM has a lot of flaws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
The first book does get better though, but yea, really takes off with the second book. I'd say its worth trudging through the first just to give the second a chance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Metonymy posted:Why do grizzled magical assassins talk like 16 year-old girls?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 20:54
|
|