|
I just finished Memories of Ice last night. Whiskeyjack nooooooo 
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
I didn't like these books. Maybe you will! Metonymy fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:After continuing to read so much positive praise for the series on this thread, I slogged my way through the first book, and half of the second. In total, I think I've read about 1000+ pages of this stuff. Just gonna say that I am only about 3/4 through the first book and already basically disagree with every single thing you just said here, so don't assume the invested people who read all the books were lying or something. I can pretty easily visualize a T'lan Imass because they get described pretty clearly as soon as one shows up. I don't really know much about who they are or where they came from but that's something I'm ok learning as I go. I think the characterization is quite good, much deeper than a D&D novel of course (though I am aware the setting was orginally an RPG homebrew). I'll grant you his naming conventions are terrible, though. I'm not trying to make you like the book, just saying that your experience with it being so objectively terrible is not really necessarily something everyone new to the series will agree with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
I know i'm probably not going to convince you to stick with the series or anything, but my main problem with the first book was basically the "Hulk vs. Superman" thing you mentioned, except I thought of it as more as the entire climax of the first book having a very "Dragonball Z" feel, and I definitely think that's (almost completely) gone away by the third book. Also this quote from the second book is a badass example of a character way deeper than a stat sheet, and pretty much the point where I realized I was in for the long haul with this series:Duiker posted:I’ll never return to the List of the Fallen, because I see now that the unnamed soldier is a gift. The named soldier demands a response among the living, a response no-one can make. Why did she die, not him? Why do the survivors remain anonymous – as if cursed – while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold? Let my death hold no glory, and let me die forgotten and unknown. Let it not be said that I was one among the dead to accuse the living.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:There is no characterization beyond what you would find on a Dungeons & Dragons character sheet (Warren: Onuk 'Tloot'tloot'le, Charisma: 18, Background: Orphan), the world-building is marginal at best (what the heck is a T'lan Imass? why can't I visualize one after spending 1000+ pages in this series?), and the only redeeming feature is the semblance of continuity between the books. The characters don't get big expository introductions but they are mostly pretty solid. For say, Ganoes Paran did you really only get character sheet details (noble born officer, warren: Hounds?, charisma: ?)? Nothing on Toc the younger? Hell Circle Breaker gets more info inside 5 pages than a lot of protagonists get in fantasy books. Especially in GotM there are some pretty flat characters. Anomander Rake is pretty groan inducing (with the exception of explaining to Baruk why he fights because sending his people to die in battle for others at least forces them do something other than wallow in ennui for tens of thousands of years) and Coltaine isn't much more than the perfect general, but neither are the central characters in their stories. And you didn't get any visualization on T'lan Imass? Personally I found "The skin that stretched across the squat man’s robust bones was a shiny nut brown in colour, the texture of leather. Whatever flesh it had once covered had contracted to thin strips the consistency of oak roots – such muscles showed through torn patches here and there. The creature’s face, what Toc could see of it, bore a heavy chinless jawbone, high cheeks and a pronounced brow ridge. The eye sockets were dark holes." (GotM, UK Trade, p.202) to be a pretty clear picture. The names I'll give you but most of the worst ones are nicknames. Is Full Metal Jacket garbage because if features Joker, Pyle, Rafterman, and Lt Touchdown? Or the non-human or incredibly ancient civilizations. Arab or Asian names sure have a bunch of pointless diacritics and have you heard Spanish names? They go on forever. Give me a John Smith any day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:This series feels like: "Who would win in a battle: Hulk or Superman?" got novelized. Except without the background that accompanies either Hulk or Superman, so you're basically left with "Who would win in a battle: a string of syllables with an unnecessary diacritic or another string of syllables with a different diacritic?" I can see why you would get that idea, but it's a pretty superficial take on it. Yes, sometimes the superpowered badasses fight, but just as often they find a reason not to fight, or they get punked by someone way down the power scale. For example, in GOTM: The plan was that Lorn would free the Tyrant and it would fight Rake, but what actually killed the Tyrant was a combination of Paran in the warren fighting the Finnest until the Azath could get hold of it, and the Bridgeburners in the real world blowing Raest the gently caress up. Also, I'd like to know where these infodumps can be found because the usual complaint is that solid information about the world is hard to come by and has to be teased out through context, inferences and going back to check if that name you half-remember is related to this new name you just ran across. And then when you do think you have something figured out, some other character will contradict it. (Unless you mean the character lists and glossaries? Those are the only true infodumps I can think of.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:I can see why you would get that idea, but it's a pretty superficial take on it. Yes, sometimes the superpowered badasses fight, but just as often they find a reason not to fight, or they get punked by someone way down the power scale. For example, in GOTM: The plan was that Lorn would free the Tyrant and it would fight Rake, but what actually killed the Tyrant was a combination of Paran in the warren fighting the Finnest until the Azath could get hold of it, and the Bridgeburners in the real world blowing Raest the gently caress up. There are a few small infodumps, like when Uncle Mammot explains the progenitor races' history to Crokus, or when Tool explains the T'lan Imass stuff to Lorn but they're rare and actually sort of welcome when they come because of how stingy he is with background information otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
These books are fun.
Metonymy fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:Erikson tries to deliver the same 10,000-foot view with a 3rd-person omniscient narrator You are wrong even with the basic facts. The rest is the very common and predictable mold of those readers that can only glide the surface.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
As I said, you're welcome to not like the books, but I don't see how you can expect a more detailed explanation of what a T'lan Imass or Tiste Andii look like than the literal paragraph of explanation of what those look like the very first time that one has a major appearance (Tool and Rake, respectively). If you can't enjoy a book without a description accurate down to details like exactly how tall Rake is or precisely how an T'lan Imass' nose is shaped, then I'm sorry and I don't know what to tell you, but I am perfectly capable of filling in those details myself because they don't matter to the story. In fact, the obsessive inclusion of such meaningless details in other books is a lot of what makes those books feel like D&D recaps to me, especially the 100th time I get told that Drizzt has purple eyes and lithe arms or whatever. That doesn't make Drizzt a deeper character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:You are wrong even with the basic facts. edit: Nothing constructive here! Maybe he's right! Metonymy fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:You are wrong even with the basic facts. Yes, Metonymy, how common of you to only glide the surface of a text that does very little to pull you in. I'm midway through book 8 and I really like the books and the world. However, it's obvious that a lot of Metonymy's critiques are on the mark. The world is interesting to me and seeing god-like action figures crash into each other in rock-and-a-hard-spot situations leads to some interesting scenarios. It's like myth-making in action, and I get a kick out of it. None of that excuses the fact that Erickson's exposition and character development leave a lot to be desired. There is often very little motivation for exactly why we should care about any particular character. The seemingly infinite number of Malazan soldiers is the prime example of this, but it's still true for almost every other character most of the time. He has his moments, like with Duiker or Karsa and even Rake in the last half of TTH, but c'mon, it's obvious that Erikson cares a lot more about the world and how his toys play in the world than crafting an amazing genre narrative. And that's okay. edit: grammar Sir Bruce fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
edit: Enjoy the series.
Metonymy fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:There's always ostensibly a reason that Superman and Batman are fighting too. The thing that's missing from these conflicts in the first few books of the Malazan series is a sense of why we should care, and what motivates the players. So Lorn wants to kill Rake. Why does Lorn want to kill Rake? Do we want Lorn to kill Rake? The Tyrant wants to kill everything - why? I can address what you wrote later, but I just wanted to say that even though it's an old book and past the point of having to spoiler it, I had tagged that climactic plot point because just a few posts ago someone said they were 3/4 through the first book. Removing the spoiler tags was a bit unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:Why does Lorn want to kill Rake? It's explained in the book. quote:Do we want Lorn to kill Rake? I don't know, do you. The first book is written deliberately so that the reader doesn't take sides immediately. Gray characters and whatnot. quote:The Tyrant wants to kill everything - why? It's explained in the book. quote:There's no context, and no reason to be emotionally invested in the outcome. I enjoy Joe Abercrombie quite a bit. It's true that his stuff is immensely more accessible and palatable for a large public. It's not true that "being emotionally invested" is his exclusive. On a general level I consider Abercrombie more immediately "fun" to read, but in no way I care for those characters more than many characters in Malazan. Usually, Abercrombie's characters are "types" that are very easy to familiarize and sympathize with (and often they are exaggerated as parodies). This is a "feature" of simplification, not of deep characterization. Identification requires a certain emptiness so that the reader can fill it with his own projection. Recognizable and familiar types. Erikson often works against the grain, and as it has been pointed out many times there are no "slice of life" scenes that are typical in fantasy whose whole purpose is familiarization. It doesn't work well as mass entertainment and requires more effort from the reader to engage with the text. quote:There's a point in the second book where Shadowthrone almost literally says "It's so hard to find good help these days." Maybe it makes sense that the God of the Death World would talk like an effete monocle-popper, but we're not given any other evidence to suggest that he should. This is sloppy, inconsistent, characterization. Considering you haven't even realized who ST is I guess you are one of those "skim readers" who read a couple of lines every other page and pretend then of being able to say something relevant about a book. quote:Again, I don't have any idea of what motivates these "races" in a broad, ridiculous Tolkein-generalization sense, What "motivates" T'lann is explained in the book. quote:Who is Mappo? What's a Trell? You are always given the necessary amount of information to understand what is going on. Who is Mappo is explained in the book, what's a Trell is not required to understand what happens and will be brought up whenever it becomes relevant. quote:But to slog through a thousand pages to piece together from context clues that a Jaghut is basically an orc? Really? An orc? Because they share skin color and maybe tusks? And you needed a thousand pages for that? And now that you've come to that realization, what changes for you? Are you complaining because the book DOESN'T give you a D&D Character Sheet and that's exactly what you expected? quote:So here's my subjective experience: the first two books of the Malazan series have a lot of what makes genre fiction lovely, without much of what makes genre fiction fun. Yes, and well all feel enriched by you sharing it. Goodbye.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Good job being a huge rear end in a top hat to someone who wanted to talk about Erikson's (obvious) flaws in writing characters and their motivation. Edit for some real content: Can someone tell me where exactly Clip came from? I was thinking about Nimander and his stupid band of misfits and I realized I didn't really know Clip's origin. I'm sure I missed it, but where did a lone Tiste Andii come from and how did he become Rake's Mortal Sword? Sir Bruce fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Sir Bruce posted:Good job being a huge rear end in a top hat to someone who wanted to talk about Erikson's (obvious) flaws in writing characters and their motivation. As for Clip: Clip came from Bluerose. It's mentioned several times that the Bluerose have slightly darker skin because they have some Tiste Andii blood in them. Kinda like the Shake that way. Clip came from a group of surviving Tiste Andii who live underground (in total darkness, the way Andii like it). They were ruled by a council of mages with the most pure Andii blood (most there are mixed to some degree). They worshiped Rake. If I remember correctly, they sacrificed themselves, or Clip sacrificed them, in order to give Clip power of some sort. I'm still not convinced that Clip was ever the Mortal Sword of Darkness. He may well have convinced himself, but I don't think it was ever really true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
That he had no idea why Lorn was doing what she was makes me think he was seriously not paying attention. Lots of characters discuss why Lorn was doing it, both in her personal reasons and in the overall plan. That he doesn't understand the motives of the T'lan Imass when Tool gives pretty much the most straight forward explanation of anything in the series about them, or that he didn't notice that Hood and Shadowthrone were different people and called it sloppy inconsistent characterization just says he is only skimming it. Erikson does have problems with weak characterization sometimes. The endless marines have a tendency to blur together and some others aren't very good even when you can tell them apart. But there is a lot of characterization and development and changes even in GotM. Consider where Paran starts and ends. Lorn also gets a fair amount of depth, we see what she is, how she got there, and a great deal of struggle between her and her role. Sir Bruce posted:Good job being a huge rear end in a top hat to someone who wanted to talk about Erikson's (obvious) flaws in writing characters and their motivation. Clip was one of the descendants of Tiste Andii who fled Kurald Galain who weren't with Rake. They settled in Bluerose and lived there as semi-secret priest royalty to avoid the Tiste Edur. The rest of the Bluerose Tiste Andii were killed by the Tiste Edur and their warlocks once they got the crippled god's power and discovered the Tiste Andii. The Bluerose Tiste Andii worshiped Rake and like many worshipers they had a Mortal Sword. Most of the other characters didn't believe he actually was the for reals Mortal Sword though so maybe he was just making it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
Apparently Erikson just finished the first book in the Forge of Darkness:quote:"Finished the novel five minutes ago. 292000 words. Short!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
edit: Enjoy the series.
Metonymy fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:I get who Shadowthrone is. Being "Shadowthrone" in "High House Shadow" with dressed-up hellhounds and a bestbuddy who is the Patron of Assassins isn't "death aspected"? Every single thing about that connotes death. Not really no as there is already a House of Death. And a god of death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:I get who Shadowthrone is. Being "Shadowthrone" in "High House Shadow" with dressed-up hellhounds and a bestbuddy who is the Patron of Assassins isn't "death aspected"? Every single thing about that connotes death. edit: You complain that it's not character driven because you ignore the differences between characters and just focus on the purely superficial. Is every character fully fleshed out? No, but in such a massive cast you can't. Every book has a couple who are, though, and there are several who stand out hugely over the course of the series. Fiddler, Itkovian, Tehol, Bugg, Karsa, Ganoes Paran, Mappo, Beak, Trull, Onrack, Tool, Toc, Stormy, Gesler... I could keep going. Everyone has their favorites. I can see the plot argument, too, though - one of the constant themes of the series is that the characters are swept up by things out of their control. That life is plot-driven, if you will. But the characters are far from flat or lifeless, and it's impossible not to care about some of them. WeWereSchizo fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
edit: Enjoy the series!
Metonymy fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:No. Hood, the king of "High House Death" is death aspected. Shadowthrone of High House Shadow, is loving Shadow aspected. edit: Enjoy the series. Metonymy fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:Your username notwithstanding, I don't get the feeling you've hung out with many marines or soldiers or anyone in a position of martial authority. People in those positions rarely says twee trite poo poo like "It's so hard to find good help these days". Characters in anime do. Who says Shadowthrone is a character of true authority? He is a scoundrel and a liar, he is the true personification of what he represents, shadows and illusions. Aren't you projecting your own ideas of what a god should act out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:Sorry, I didn't realize "aspected" was some magic semantic keyword in the MBF universe. As for how Shadowthrone talks, that's just part of the universe and how ascendency/godhood is. poo poo, but the later books there's an Elder God who works as a manservant to a dude who refuses to wear pants. I'm assuming you won't mind me spoiling a twist you'll never read to. You're upset because gods in the Malazan universe don't talk how you expect them to? You'll be real upset when 500,000 year old immortal dragon sorceresses get blown up by a mortal with a grenade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
FWIW Metonymy, I agree with what you're saying - I don't think he's very good at characterization. For example, I have trouble keeping track of all the semi-important Bridgeburners (i.e. not Whiskeyjack or Quick Ben) because they all seem to have the same literary "voice." Also, that Duiker quote I posted a page back or so not withstanding, he's not so great at dialog - there's none of the memorable, awesome "stick in your head" lines like you find all over ASoIaF or even (early) Wheel of Time. That doesn't mean I don't like it (I really do, so far at least), it just means there's things it does better than other fantasy series and things it does worse. I mainly like the puzzle-box aspect of it, I like that there's this world with all this crazy magic and elder races and alternate dimensions where I don't really know everything that's going on, and plot points that reveal truths about the world are revealed stealthily over time to the reader. I like how each book doesn't have a straight "I must go here and do this thing so that the world is saved" path where the main thrust of the plot is repeated ad nauseum (looking at you, Wheel of Time). It makes me feel like i'm being treated like an adult, even when i'm reading about elf man turning into a dragon to destroy the ancient evil orc-thing. Popular Human fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Popular Human posted:FWIW Metonymy, I agree with what you're saying - I don't think he's very good at characterization. For example, I have trouble keeping track of all the semi-important Bridgeburners (i.e. not Whiskeyjack or Quick Ben) because they all seem to have the same literary "voice." Also, that Duiker quote I posted a page back or so not withstanding, he's not so great at dialog - there's none of the memorable, awesome "stick in your head" lines like you find all over ASoIaF or even (early) Wheel of Time. That doesn't mean I don't like it (I really do, so far at least), it just means there's things it does better than other fantasy series and things it does worse. Precisely this. Metonymy, if you're still reading, we are willing to talk about the flaws in the series. But the 'flaws' you cited weren't really bringing much but confusion to the table. It's as if you were critiquing A Song of Ice and Fire by saying it had not enough sex and politics and too many mage duels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
Metonymy posted:edit: Enjoy the series. Dude. Forget that guy. You've articulated your points well. All I can say is that I shared many of the same thoughts at first. Yes, you've sunk a lot of time and effort into these things. Read the third book. If you still feel the same way then nothing will change your mind. Gardens sucks, and Deadhouse Gates is iffy on the first read. Memories of Ice is amazing though, and you might change your tune. So give it a shot and see what you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Junk Science posted:Dude. Forget that guy. You've articulated your points well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Apparently Erikson just finished the first book in the Forge of Darkness: What's the word count on some of the other Malazan books, for comparison? EDIT: Answered my own question. Per this site, Deadhouse Gates is around 272k, MoI is 358k. Still too many words, Steve! EDIT2: And I apparently didn't even notice that you yourself submitted that information. Eerie... Juaguocio fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:He complained about the characterization of the God of Death, and he was talking about Shadowthrone. If he's not reading closely enough to tell the difference between Hood and Shadowthrone, two characters whose only similarity is that they rule their respective Houses, then it doesn't really matter how well he articulates his point. It doesn't matter in general, it's a series of fantasy novels. Some people will like it, some won't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:He complained about the characterization of the God of Death, and he was talking about Shadowthrone. If he's not reading closely enough to tell the difference between Hood and Shadowthrone, two characters whose only similarity is that they rule their respective Houses, then it doesn't really matter how well he articulates his point. Ehhh it does make him look inattentive but it's not a big deal. What is a weird/silly thing to say imho though is the same complaint where he complained that the God of Shadow speaks like a tosser so the characterization is bad because gods aren't supposed to speak like tossers or because other gods don't speak like a tosser??? The natural conclusion that should've come out of reading the God of Shadow speak like a tosser should have been... well maybe the dude is a tosser but instead he folded up his arms, shook his head and said no, this poo poo is stupid because gods [from my viewpoint] should not speak like tossers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Apparently Erikson just finished the first book in the Forge of Darkness: Wow he's a fast writer. Metonymy, you sure brought life back into this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Popular Human posted:...there's none of the memorable, awesome "stick in your head" lines like you find all over ASoIaF or even (early) Wheel of Time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Veering completely and wildly off-topic, but what notable lines does early WoT have? "I'll ask Perrin/Rand/Matt about girls. He knows how to deal with them!" Unforgettable stuff. (Though Erikson is also guilty of repetition of phrases. Wave of magic and whatever.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
One question that Metonymy brought up is what drove Raest and the other Jaghut Tyrants? Someone said that was a dumb question because it was 'in the book'. But I don't remember that being explained. My impression was that most of the Jaghut were peaceful, solitary creatures, but every once in a while, one was born with a lust for power or something like that. What's the right answer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
Sir Bruce posted:One question that Metonymy brought up is what drove Raest and the other Jaghut Tyrants? Someone said that was a dumb question because it was 'in the book'. But I don't remember that being explained. My impression was that most of the Jaghut were peaceful, solitary creatures, but every once in a while, one was born with a lust for power or something like that. What's the right answer? You've basically got it in your spoilered bit. I get why someone would see this as simplistic characterization. But it doesn't really bother me, because all this happened thousands and thousands of years in the past, and we're hearing about it from someone who either wasn't there (like Mammot) or was there but isn't objective (like Tool). The Tyrants aren't fleshed out as three-dimensional characters because the people who describe them don't see them that way. If Raest had deeper motivations for wanting power besides 'I just loves me some power', he didn't choose to share them with the reader during the few passages told from his perspective (possibly because he was too busy being insane and pissed off). Another way to look at it is that, for the purposes of GOTM, Raest isn't so much a character as he is a weapon, or a force of nature. He's unleashed to cause destruction, just like those demons that High Mages like to keep hidden in vials.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:It doesn't matter in general, it's a series of fantasy novels. Some people will like it, some won't. Yeah this is pretty much it. Not everyone's gonna like it, but I do find it interesting that some peoples complaints are what other people like about the series. I like that Eriksson didn't spend time explaining every little thing. It can be confusing but I enjoyed the setting and what was going on enough that I kept reading and most of the time he more or less explains things as you continue reading the series. Yeah at times I felt like Eriksson was kind of losing control over what was going on in his own books, and some things were just confusing, but a lot of confusing or frustrating things get filled out in later books. It's kind of a series you have to commit to reading all the way through, though I found each book interesting enough enough on its own to keep me going. Also, Shadowthrone is pretty much loving insane (and really loving smart and manipulative) so honestly I never felt that anything he said was just too crazy or out of character. Dude is nuts. Also also, to the complaint about the marines all being generic, I kind of agree and disagree with that at the same time. Yeah purely looking at their dialogue and actions, there isn't a ton to make them all unique characters, but on the other hand I realize Eriksson was trying to give some face to all of these soldiers that, as a whole, play very important roles in the book. It's pretty ambitious to try to take an army (well, even a small part of an army) and give a bunch of soldiers individual personalities. Eriksson tried to do this and I feel like he had some success at least...yes, most of the marines aren't exceptional characters, but I also found it more interesting than a bunch of nameless marines yet we're supposed to have this feeling of the Malazan Army being this kickass group of soldiers who do things their way and blah blah blah. Maybe I'm saying here that by giving individual marines some character, it helped him characterize the entire army in a way that wouldn't have been possible if he left them nameless, even if it did mean creating a bunch of pretty one dimensional characters. And as far as I can tell, Tyrants (a general term) are just people from whatever race that realize they have the power to rule over everyone by force and go do so. That may seem like a pretty flimsy motivation but I don't think it's particularly hard to find real world examples of people who have acted the same way with the same motivation
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Leospeare posted:You've basically got it in your spoilered bit. Yeah that's a pretty weak explanation. 'It happened because sometimes it happened.' I agree that this isn't a big deal with how Raest is used in the GOTM narrative, but Raest shows up again later and is kinda important although I suppose that's more of comic relief than anything else. Erikson often walks a very fine line of leaving the world's ancient history in the shadows (haha) and giving us enough context to understand the current situation. The tyrants (and the whole Jaghut-Imass war) is one area where I thought a little more context was needed. Just one additional prologue section or something. On the marines, it just felt like he could have had 60% of the marines with a little more development of those and gotten the same thing across. At least shrink the number that we get POVs from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 14:18
|
|