Great video A.P.! It's funny that Marvel got brought up because I actually think from a structural standpoint MCU and Malazan are quite similar. Now go with me on this! I apologize in advance for the length but I was inspired. Lets look at Iron man and Gardens of the Moon first. Both start in medias res. In Iron Man it's Tony as a late 30's man in a car on the way to a weapons test/sales pitch meeting. We know nothing of his backstory or who he really is. Same thing for GOTM we have no idea of who these people are or what their goals are..at first. Both function as their own story with its own narrative that ends with questions left to be answered about where the story goes. Also for time reference we can assume Iron Man is the present day when it was made circa 2008ish Then we move onto the second major installment. For the MCU that was Thor a few years later, for Malazan it was Deadhouse Gates. Now, outside of the post credit scene, there was only one character from either the first two Iron Man movies in Thor. At least to my memory, which was Agent Colson. In this respect Deadhouse Gates is even more connected we get actual crossover characters. Not all of them but we do get a few. For time reference we can't exactly assume anything because its a whole different planet and they are gods. So where exactly does this line up to Iron mans 2008??? Who knows exactly? We know he's on earth at around the time the film was made circa 2011. But the first parts at Asgard? Is time relative when they traverse the Rainbow Road of the Bifrost? Then we move onto Captain America for the MCU. That is another completely stand alone movie introducing a new character with no apparent connections to either Thor or Iron Man. For time reference Captain America is the 3rd major character introduced but BEFORE Iron Man chronologically cause hes in WWII...wait we can't possibly have that. Its the 3rd movie! It has to definitely be after 2008. My brain can only function linearly. Then what happens? The first real convergences. For the MCU it's The Avengers, where it connects all three previously introduced main characters...sounds similar to Memories of Ice if you ask me. After that convergence people complain that book 4 then focuses heavily on a whole new character Karsa...oh kind of like, I don't know, Guardians of the Galaxy. Which, once again, brought in a whole host of new, seemingly unconnected characters. For time reference we know Peter was born on Earth at least before 1984 cause he knows what Footloose is. But the rest of the movie? Who knows? Its a different part of the galaxy. Then book 5 cannot possibly add even newer stuff and be completely different again...oh wait like Ant-man and then Black Panther and then.... All of these standalone movies with connections to, but few crossover characters from, previous movies. Unless I missed, Iron man Thor Captain America the Guardians in each film after they were introduced...All of this culminating into one last big convergence of Endgame/Crippled God...Nah I don't think that story structure can work at all. I bet a lot of people who would complain about the structure of Malazan wouldn't see it's basically the same as the MCU. With the MCU the are able to see each movie as its own AND as part of the grand structure and accept it. It feels like with Malazan they think it must follow the traditional, each book must continue exactly where previous book ended, structure. Sorry for the novella, this conversation sparked a connection that even I hadn't made till now. Cheers to anyone who read my musings!
It was great fun, and a fantastic learning experience for me, to have the great Iskar Jarak on the channel. Thanks for watching, I am really pleased that you enjoyed the video.
Thank you so much for agreeing to the conversation. It was a genuine pleasure and honour to have you on the channel for such a fun discussion. Thank you, Iskar.
I have no complaints or criticisms of this awesome collaboration! Except that A.P. really needs to work on his pronunciation of Wolvish. A.P. - I give that same speech to my students about pronouncing their names every semester here in New Jersey, one of the most diverse places on the planet. “Live the themes” - wisdom from Iskar, and I love it! Thanks for the fun and insightful conversation, you two!
I do suck at lupine sounds. I will try to work on it. 😉 The name thing was always difficult for me, I wanted to respect their decision to use an 'English' name but at the same time I wanted to reassure them that they didn't have to and that it was my issue, not theirs.
I was going to wait for this, but seeing as how my long weekend is coming up, I'm going to drop this now and damn the consequences. The continuing adventures of Doctor Fantasy and Professor Fireballs. Glutton for punishment. Doctor Fantasy turned. His mirrored reflection turned as well, and glancing over his shoulder, he could see the cape behind him gently drift, the piped hem barely a finger's breadth from the pale tiles of the floor at his feet. 'A finger's breath', he thought and smiled to himself. Brushing off the sleeves of his dark and checkered jacket, he stretched and walked through the door of the room, heeled boots clicking, the sound slowly fading as he vanished from view. Two hard raps, a silence, drawn out only as much as necessary, and a final rap brought him to his front door, and after a sidelong glance into the hall mirror, he slid the deadbolt aside with a squeal and pulled the door towards him. "Professor Fireballs, good evening to you my good corporal, how are you this fine evening?" His compatriot stood on the landing, arms crossed, the very air around him turgid with humidity. A bright flash behind him turning him into a spectre, a deafening boom then, the very earth trembling in its wake. "Gods man, let me in before it starts pissing down!" snapped Fireballs, the remains of what looked to be an umbrella now noticeably dangling from one hand. "A few more minutes and I would have had to swim here." He strode inside, earning him a dark glare at the muddy splodges left in his wake, and sat on a bench against the wall, removing his boots and laying the corpse of his umbrella beside them. "Are the rest of your guests still to come or am I the last?" Fantasy had turned aside and was gesturing to someone out of view and then pointing to the tracks at the door. "No sir, you are indeed the final contestant. The last of the first gathering of the Association of Professional Orators and Scriveners (trademark pending). A gathering, admittedly, somewhat reduced by the current plague ravaging our society." "Scriveners", Fireballs muttered to himself, "I'm not sure what nude women carved on whale tusks by sailors has to do with the telling of a Mighty Tale.." Fantasy's left eyebrow twitched. "Writers, good sir, writers. But I do believe you know this and are just trying to wind me up." Fireballs stood up with a grunt. "Aye yes. Shall we Tweedy?" Together they entered the grand room, the sounds of greeting and clinking of glasses drifting into the hallway and the rooms nearby. ... The room was silent but for the sharp cracks of the wood in the fireplace. A snore started from somewhere nearby, but just as suddenly, snuffed itself out. Fireballs and Fantasy were seated at, or perhaps more precisely, draped precariously across a large oak table, empty glassware arrayed before them, like a small army expecting an easy victory but ending up in a rout. Fantasy groaned then, and gripping the edge of the table, forced himself back into his chair. Licking his finger, he rubbed at his eye, removing whatever had gummed it shut, and rubbed it on his cape. He reached forward then, and grabbed Fireballs by the collar and tipped him back into his own chair, startling him awake. "Hunh. Wha? Omtose fell luck!" Fireballs' glazed eyes jerked about the room, the remains of his last drink now inconveniently frozen and stuck to his fingers. His gaze flicked to Fantasy, and held fast in recognition. "Ah, Tweedy, we have survived the night it seems." He glanced at the table in front of him, and attempted to put his drink down. No such luck. "At least I didn't get saddled with any of those ridiculous awards... 'Greatest number of silent punctuation marks in a book', 'Longest diatribe performed while standing on one leg', 'Pithiest one word review of a work'. Hood's teeth, who comes up with this ridiculous nonsense?" Doctor Fantasy yawned noisily, "Ah my friend, know this, it is not the award itself but the receiving of said award that dooms the individual to further mediocrity, thus removing them from our path. Did not the esteemed Professor Ellison claim that "Awards are bullshit"?" Fireball smirked as he stretched in his chair, "I shall endeavour to remember to check my pockets on the way out then. The last thing I need now is an APOS trophy in my name.. "
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd The sheer genius of the leadup to the final line . . . Indescribable! An "APOS trophy"! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!! I'm going to be smiling all day. Probably tomorrow and into next week too. I feel like we could be on the verge of something monumental here -- The Collected Short Stories of D'Octor Ph'Antasii and P'Rofessor Fireballs! A literary masterpiece of a quality unseen since . . . well, of a quality heretofore unseen! It has bestseller written all over it! Thank you for the smiles, Paul!
Absolutely loving this! The publication order vs chronological order argument is one that always sticks in my throat when I hear recommendations for first time readers. I mean.. would an author release a book and expect you to buy it, not read it.. then wait a few more years and release another which you should read immediately then go back and read the one you bought years before? "My cousin wants to read Malazan, where's the best place to begin?" 😱
Hi BB, I think that some would enjoy the intellectual exercise, but I will always fall down on publication order. There are now multiple entry points to the world which will each garner different reader experiences (starting with Paths to Ascendancy or Night of Knives for instance). But ultimately, some of the greatest benefits of the series appear on a reread when you can just experience the writing without the pressure to find out what happens next.
You guys are so adorable together and I really enjoyed this video. Two of the titans of the malazan community talking about complaints and criticism. Really fantastic. thanks!
You are very welcome and it is always a pleasure to hear from you. I will try to be more mindful of spoiler information. I do try. I am just not good at remembering that.
This was great! I had a lot of fun watching you two discuss so friendly and eloquently things that other people fight over the internet for. Your mature and responsible approach is an example to everyone. A.P. being so kind at the end, melted my heart. I love how these videos are not competitions about who is smarter, who knows more, and who should get more praise, but about helping everyone understand these books. And explaining that each of us is good at something, more trained at something, actually makes a difference. A.P. is born with the superpower of explaining things to people in such a beautiful manner ❤️ Thank you both for this great discussion! See you in the next one 🤗
Thank you for the exceptionally kind words, Rox. I am very happy that you enjoyed the video. I am truly grateful for your support, and the support of the whole community. Seeing people enjoy and engage with the videos, whether they agree or disagree, is fantastic. Thank you very much, Rox. Have a fantastic weekend.
@@ACriticalDragon how would I not support such kind and amazing people, who love literature and share their knowledge and means with everyone else, for the purpose of teaching them and enriching their reading experience? ☺️ I wish you a fantastic weekend too A.P. Thanks again for everything!
*We meet again, Dr. F'ireb'all* 😂 (enough apostrophes???) Despite recent conflicts, The Niflrog confirms this collab was greatly enjoyable! 🙂 Iskar catched many of my own opinions on the series: yes, it can be intellectually satisfying, but it's about the emotional connection at its core. One of the things I enjoy from your prologue analysis, and from Vallestad's analysis, is how you guys put into words things that we apparently pick up from the text intuitively, and then we don't know where we got this or that bit of information encoded in our memory 😂 It's wild how we read subtext and subtle detail and integrate it into our interpretation of things ( I say we, because this happens to many Malazan Vets I've talked to over the years).
Hi Niflrog, that 'seeing how it is done' is one of the great joys of analysis for me. Seeing how authors use the techniques to create the effects in the reader is fascinating to me. If it adds to other people's reading experience when they watch the videos, then all the better. It was so much fun talking to Iskar about this. We will have to think of a good topic for you and I to chat about, I would love to have a conversation about this stuff with you. Have a great weekend.
Fantastic collab video! Great reminder to be more mindful of my language when discussing books. I'm still learning to identify why a book doesn't work for me as well as finding the best language to articulate those thoughts. Thanks!
Hi Johanna, thank you for watching. I am sure that you can easily identify what works or doesn't work for you in a novel. It is very clear that you put a lot of thought and consideration into how you discuss books and articulate your thoughts. I am only ever hoping to join in those conversations and never to dictate to people what they should think or say. So I do apologise if this came across as dictatorial or chastising. Literature is such a personal experience that it is already difficult to articulate to others what we feel.
I was expecting you to go all shakespearean on Niflrog there at the start, but you were surprisingly restrained. I am impressed, and only slightly disappointed. :) I want all of the Malazan subplots, thanks! If the authors have any spares left over, I'll happily take those too.
Erickson's dialog for every character makes every character feel different. The one dialog where i could feel the malice and presence of such a character was the introduction of the crippled god. I forget the details but i think it was when he was sitting on his throne before he was chained.
To me it feels that the most criticism comes from readers who don't like to be taken out of their comfort-zone, and prefer ready-made answers to being challenged to form their own opinion.
Hi Fantastic Philosophy, thank you for watching. It is always appreciated. I think that you are probably right for some readers. We all read for different reasons, we all have different interests, and we all respond to texts as individuals. Part of it could also be the disconnect between expectation and actual text. I think that we can all sympathise with the position of expectating one thing then being disappointed or annoyed when what we get is very different. And that can be hard to deal with and difficult to articulate. The lack of a central party of characters PLUS the lack of a well defined central narrative arc PLUS the explicitly nuanced style PLUS the post-modern structure PLUS the importance of theme..... That is a lot of change to present to a reader not expecting it.
@@ACriticalDragon you're right of course in that we all read for different reasons (i also like my comfort-reads, guilty-pleasure songs and big-macs!) and i also think it's ok to complain if something is different than expected. If i f.i. read a book that is unexpectedly smutty, i might complain about the smut part, but i won't call it bad writing just because i don't like it. I guess i'm trying to say that i understand the complaints about Malazan and am ok with that, but calling something "bad writing" just because it's different than expected, annoys me (in general, not just Malazan). O, and thanks for the video, really enjoyed it!
@@fantasticphilosophy181 I agree. You are absolutely right. It is always good to hear from you. I am glad that there is still some content on here to tempt you back.
Yeah, and to me, most of the praise feels like a combination of the justification of effort effect and Pseudo profound bullshit tricking people into thinking it's deep. So I guess we can both make up stories where the other person is the stupid one.
This is the content I crave. Thank y'all so much! This was really interesting. EDIT: 'Publishing is an industry.' 'We have seen the commodification of literature.' 'Manufactured consumption.' 'The serialization of the commodity' and how that creates expectation. The hype machine. These are the concepts I'm really grappling with right now, and it's so great to get some more insight into them.
This community is better for both guys I really appreciate these discussions. The scene that you mentioned later in the books is extremely challenging to read. However, as you said the series wouldn't be the same if you the reader starts removing aspects that they don't want to be confronted with. The snake story was one that I struggled to connect with which made the conclusion to section probably more satisfying.
Hi Joff, Thanks for watching and the great comment. The Snake is one of those story threads that I think a lot of readers not only struggle with, but think could be a lot shorter, but, as you point out, that would effect the impact of its conclusion. To what extent it would impact the ending we don't know until we try to edit it down and then try it on an unsuspecting reader... but that might count as cruel and unusual punishment. 😂
A very enjoyable, even uplifting discussion. Both Iskar and you, A.P, are as sensible as you are passionate. As someone who also has given his life to literature, I cannot but love a conversation like this. It was terrific to have been able to eavesdrop. A classic!
Hi Johan, thank you very much for the very kind and generous comment. Literature is a big house with lots of room for different opinions, stories, readers, authors, genres, and even media. Celebrating what we love doesn't mean we have to put others down. And acknowledging that a lot of criticisms are closer to personal preference than objective evaluation, does not diminish nor dismiss the complaints. I love being able to have conversations with this entire community, even the ones that I disagree with. Thank you so much for continuing to watch and comment on the videos.
Hi JCiL, thanks for watching. Literature that challenges you can be frustrating but it can also be very rewarding. Sometimes I want a story to just entertain my socks off, other times I want a narrative that will wrestle my brain and make me reevaluate my world view... There is room for all.
I was shocked. It took over 34 minutes to get a mention of lasers and fireballs. The trouble with the opening of Bleak House is that Dicken’s prose is just too muddy. The name that I wonder about most is Whiskeyjack. In Gardens of the Moon, I think one of the Moranth calls him “bird who steals.” This is one of the few times where Erikson breaks the veil of his world. Whiskeyjack is a colloquial name in Canada for a jay that is also known as the camp robber. The name comes from a name for a tribal trickster god, Wisakedjak. All of that is really interesting, but it makes me wonder how the Moranth and the people who nicknamed him knew about it. I had a chuckle when I first read about that, and I still think it’s funny, but I also am glad that Erikson didn’t do this sort of thing too often.`
Hi DuffyPrat, Interesting points. Whether that breaches the veil of the narrative or not will be a personal choice. After all there are numerous aspects of our world that are in the books directly and not in a fantasy form. There is always a negotiation between mimesis and diegesis. So where various elements fall on that spectrum is not necessarily fixed or static.
Well, also take Cotillion. In universe, it doesn't seem to be anything other than the name of the God. If you re from north America you probably know it's a dance ( and... Dancer ;) ;) ) Same for Denaeth Ruse. Random name of the sea Warren. Anagram it and you get "Under the sea". 😂
That would be one for the lore experts to debate. We should ask @RuthanBadd, @ReallyGoodAndKind, @CounsellorofMoonSpawn, @QuickJen, @ONiflrog, @IskarJarak and get them to lead a developmental team to sort it all out.
"We are time-poor" Malaztube putting out hours and hours of content. Fans clinging on every word thinking 'I need to reread this'. Meanwhile the rest of the tbr: 😭 Excellent talk guys, both of you rock 🤘
Hi Rob, the irony was not lost on me. But at least these videos can be played as background noise... Or used to bore people to sleep. On the upside, the videos will be around for a long time. Thanks for watching. Always good to hear from you.
I love audiobooks. they are very hard to comprehend for a series like malazan. I even enjoy the malazan audiobooks. but I agree with Iskar and you here as far as Malazan goes. I need to lay eyes on these books to fully appreciate them
Okay I'm at about the 26 minutes mark and I think what you're saying might apply to many things but as a long time wheel of time fan, I feel like the Wheel of Time, as fond of the core of the narrative as I may be, could have been told in +/-4 fewer books, and having spent my whole life reading that series I don't think it's cos I don't understand why the pieces are the way they are. I think the series overindulged its worldbuilding and is poorly paced in the middle volumes. I think a perfect contrast to this is Malazan, which despite being large and not having the same structure as a short crime novel, is written without volumes of extraneous material, but with the meticulous restraint of Erikson's short story writer approach to writing big epic fantasy. I think sometimes there are legitimate criticisms to be made of extraneous material in large series that don't have to rest on expecting them to read exactly like a shorter book or whatever.
Hi Christian, I don't disagree about the WoT. My main point about this is that we start from a position that acknowledges the subjectivity of the complaint. We can identify the specific sections, threads, arcs etc. that we feel are the 'problem'. Then we analyse those sections to see what it is they are doing. It is very rare to find completely extraneous prose in a novel. So it becomes an evaluation of does it do enough or what purposes does it serve. That is implying a value judgement based on nondisclosed criteria, and assumes a utilitarian purpose trumping artistic intention. As I said, it is not that a personal complaint can't lead to identifying a genuine criticism, but rather many of us confuse a personal complaint with objective criticism. And even if both you and I agree that the WoT series suffers from 'padding' or is overlong, we both start from a subjective position and have to do further analysis to pinpoint where and what the issues are. But we will always have to bear in mind that not every reader will have the same opinion. And we may very well identify a popular section as part of the problem. So, essentially, as long as people take into account that subjectivity plays a big part of complaints, and we can never be fully objective, then we can build toward identifying actual criticism. But I have found that a lot of 'criticisms' online are simply personal preferences being presented as objective criticism without taking into account or consideration structure, theme, character development, tone, world building etc. But this is just my personal opinion about this, and I am sure that others disagree. I just find that generally narrative is more complex than people think, and often commercial considerations or personal preferences are unconscious biases that creep in and colour analysis. Therefore we always have to be cognisant of them.
@@darkportents9835 that would be the question every time. It is also why people spend years studying this stuff in order to be reasonably confident in criticising texts.
This was a very interesting discussion. It's something we've heard before in other forms, but people continue to lose sight of the fact that we all vary in taste and opinions and what we look for in a tale. But this was all very enlightening! I just got done Memories of Ice (first read) and I found the split between armies on the way to Coral as my sort of "slog" but can easily see how others can find that compelling, and character revealing, etc...
Hi Anthony, thanks for watching and the thoughtful comment. I hope that you are enjoying the books, even if there are sections and threads that you don't like.
1. I am glad that I didn't listen to the subreddit and instead read Erikson and Ian entwined in more or less publication order 2. Its great when you explain terminology. I dropped english in favor of latin and now, a couple of years later, I am actively (and passively) working on improving my english with books etc and I feel like I made a lot of progress but subtleties like the difference between "plot" and "story" are really difficult to learn for someone whose first language isn't english.
Hi King Plunger, thanks for watching and the great comment. I really wish I had studied Latin. It would have significantly improved my experience with law and modern languages. But as to specific terminology, mostly it is useful to help organise your thoughts and help breakdown aspects into discrete pieces that are easier to digest or communicate. I am very pleased to hear that you get some use out of my videos. That really is wonderful to hear. Thank you.
@@ACriticalDragon The funny thing is that latin doesn't really help me a whole lot apart from the occasional "that word is actually a derivation of... " , but I will need english for university physics in a year or two 😅
Great discussion guys. Very insightful with stimulating points to consider. I think what is sometimes frustrating about these books is not so much about alternate storytelling techniques or level of plot complexity as it is about execution and judicious strategy selection. Not every conversation has to begin with not knowing who is speaking. Not every piece of foreshadowing has to be completely unfathomable on a 'first read' (no other series inspires so much discussion/requirement of multiple reads). I don't think anyone picks up Malazan thinking they are going to get a Dean Koontz page turner, but there is a difference between complex world building with multiple interwoven plot strands and being indiscriminately confusing without purpose. I think these tales generate so many of these 'complaints' because, while clearly steeped in greatness, they could have been that much stronger taking some of these points into consideration.
Hi Jay, Thanks for watching and the thoughtful comments. I think that intentional 'obscurity' is one of the difficulties of the series and, like you suggest , probably the root cause of many of the complaints. Yet, a lot of that obscurity is linked to Erikson's choice of PoV and narrative style (admittedly both directly under his control), and the significant majority of it deliberately plays with reader perspectives and knowledge deficits. But I would say that Wolfe's Book of the New Sun is a series that is even more obscure and requires multiple reads. MBotF doesn't necessarily *require* multiple reads especially if you read actively (if you have watched Christine Vallestad's excellent GotM videos you will know what I mean), but it does *reward* multiple reads by design. So I would argue that a lot of the fun, nuance, and cleverness of Erikson's writing is disguising foreshadowing and hiding it in plain sight. Certainly, in retrospect, it is far easier to spot and thus the common comments that you *must* reread. This then makes the series very rereadable, which provides a reader with excellent value for money as they can get multiple different reading experiences out of the same series on multiple reads. So what can be viewed as a negative can also be viewed as a positive. Joyce's Ulysses, Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, Wallace's Infinite Jest, and Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury are just a few books off the top of my head that are likely considered harder, denser, and require multiple readings to truly grasp (for different reasons obviously). MBotF is not unique in that regard. So I do not necessarily agree that the series would be stronger if it was more accessible. It would certainly be more disposable, less rereadable, more generic, and more forgettable, but not necessarily stronger. But there are definitely elements that remain obscure on rereading. Some because those threads and stories are picked up in Esslemont's series. Some because neither author wants to expose or explore those elements just yet. And some because they didn't feel those elements were important to the story being explored. That doesn't mean that Erikson is always successful in this. There are certain aspects that he feels are obvious and that the reader has been given enough, and I have disagreed with him and suggested that a bit more explicit detail would have achieved his goals better. But those instances are surprisingly rare across the 10 books.
AP, you beautiful man! Mosaic novel! That’s the term I’ve been looking for. Anything you can give me on it? Or refer me to? I’ll be eternally grateful🤓
What I find amazing is that lots and lots of people are following the Malazan readalong through audiobooks. I can't imagine a series less suited for audiobooks. Maybe most epic fantasy can be consumed that way and maybe fantasy even assisted in the rise in popularity of audiobooks, because so much of it is so plot and character driven. But what if you want to reread prologues or epigraphs? Or indeed search for a signifier as to who is talking?
Hi Jeroen, Thanks for watching. I don't have the skill to listen to audio books. I am too easily distracted or I unconsciously tune out the sound and end up missing whole chunks. But each to their own. I am impressed that so many people can listen to these stories and pick up the nuance. It is very cool.
@@ACriticalDragon I really doubt that, that people pick up the nuance with an audio book. But if they say so, who am I to say different. As a non-native speaker it is not doable for me.
Another great discussion, thank you both! I understand what you mean about audiobooks, but I feel I must say Michael Page does an incredible job :) not that anyone was knocking it haha
I am really glad that you enjoyed it. Iskar is great. I have heard great things about the different audio book narrators, that they each do certain things really well... it just isn't for me.
Still mid video, but I will be interested to see if my main complaints comes up. The big one for me: There are several storylines (Toc in Memories, Janath in Reapers are the main culprits) where the story and emotional impact of what is happening would have been conveyed to me just as effectively with 1/5th as many scenes of their suffering. There are many other story threads in the series where similar topics are handled with aplomb, spending neither too little nor too much time on them. So, by comparison, when the text just keeps going over it again and again, it starts to feel kind of self-indulgent. I get pulled out of the story because I am no longer being moved by the events being told so much as I am being annoyed by the text. Also, The Healthy Dead. Nothing in that novella works for me. It is the only real time Erikson's writing feels preachy to me (I guess by design?), but at the same time it doesn't seem to have much of substance to say to me. Still the best works of fiction I've ever read.
Hi Joseph, thanks for watching and the comments. I think that one of the things we all have issues with is that reading is such an individual pursuit that it is impossible for an author to write a book that suits all readers. Certainly, if Erikson had written his works to cater specifically to my preferences, what I need and enjoy in fiction, and only explored those storylines which resonated with me, there would be a significant number of other readers who would be immensely dissatisfied. We all have different thresholds for what is necessary. Even in the fandom we see threads that you enjoy are loathed by others. Threads you wish had been explored further, other readers would excise entirely. And of course the contrary is true too. Threads that you think are too fully explored or are too obvious and repetitive are threads that really resonate with other readers. So, potentially, what you see as self-indulgent on Erikson's part another reader sees as enormously important. What you feel pulls you out of the story is the very thing that immerses another reader. This is even more evident when we consider narrative expectations and the perception of how narrative 'should' be written (which is a set of goal posts that are forever in motion). As to The Healthy Dead, I believe that Ruthan Badd has a video on his channel of myself, Philip Chase, and Ruthan discussing it. But the B&KB novellas are certainly interesting experiments with radically different targets and themes, so they won't land with all readers.
@@ACriticalDragon For sure, completely understand the difficulties. It is impossible to please everyone on every point, or even to displease everyone at every point. For those sections that are most despised by one are all especially loved by others (Tolkien paraphrase). But since it was a video on complaints, figured I would make some. :) Like you said later in the video (I had posted like 30s before you guys got to the "self indulgent" discussion ironically), a lot of it is personal experience with the text. I will have to check out that discussion on the healthy dead. Short stories are not generally my favorite format, but I'm curious to at least know what was supposed to be conveyed.
That may have to wait until I have completed my reread 😊😊 but if new discussions arise then maybe Iskar and I can tackle them. Thanks for watching. I am glad that you enjoyed it.
I'm such a side quester. If I trust a storyteller to write well... for instance with Erikson I never had any issues at all with pacing, in fact I would have loved even more. But I've a friend that hates that aspect, it's just so different per reader. I would say I still want a main quest backdrop narrative that functions relatively chronologically, though. Especially prequel style, flashbacks or what you want to call it, I don't particularly love - unless that too is a sidequest. :) In fact I find one of the most incredible things is how Erikson made me not chafe in a certain point of the series, just brilliant mind-trickery really. By the way I agree completely with A.P, I can't do audiobooks. I wish I could... but I just really miss the reader voice, and being able to re-read or analyze more conveniently, like Iskar says. However, I have gotten into ebooks where available to complement the physical... whew. I find it really convenient for travel, so I guess in that way it serves as my audiobooks.
Hi Violet, thanks for watching. One of the things that I love is when an author creates a narrative I didn't know I liked or needed. I have these ideas in my head of what I like, but there are brilliant moments when an author gives me something completely different and I didn't know that I also liked 'that' thing. If I only ever read what I thought I liked I would have missed out on brilliant novels that surprised, entertained, and engaged me.
Let the ramblings begin.... Full believer is defining the terms first. Very important in hermeneutics, and a smattering of German helped. It has been helpful when you do give names to concepts we might have picked up. Regarding too many characters, I think the issue is people trying to figure out who is 'important' and who we should pay attention to. Unfortunately, the answer in BotF is usually almost all of them on some level. Complaints about character development are like saying Picasso didn't know how to do portraits. It is just a different way of doing something that just doesn't jive with everyone. Similary, the plots of the books and the plot of the series are different. There is no Ring quest presented in the first 50 pages or printed on the back cover of the first book. That this is revealed so late in the series completely changes what you have already read and made the reread so enjoyable. I think putting the events in chronological order is in one of the circles of Hell. It must be difficult to separate some criticisms from complaints. One really irritating example which I would count as a criticism that comes to mind is Focault's Pendulum. It was translated from Italian to English but none of the epigraph's were. Just imagining quotes from Gothos written in Old Jaghut - which is actually brought up in the books. Is there such a thing as 'death of the critic/editor?' Am guessing so. Or are some criticisms just universally agreed upon complaints? But in closing, the fact that so many people can come away with different experiences is a sign of a great work.
Hi Eric, always good to hear from you. For me, having a complaint about a book is usually the first step towards isolating a criticism. But it is usually part of a process of analysing the text. I think that your point about the diversity of reader experiences with this series is both one of its greatest strengths and one of its weaknesses. A more conventional series, with a more conventional structure and style, will attract a more conventional approach and readership, and therefore it is generally easier to identify 'criticisms' as there are preexisting templates and patterns. A postmodernist series like MBotF resists that and demands a more individualised and specific analysis as certain narrative patterns are harder to detect, and the structure is a-typical.
@@ACriticalDragon It is a lot like music. Perhaps my age but there is a lot more interesting stuff out there than top 40. But the artists, and authors, are giving the masses what they want, or perhaps what they are told to want. Malazan fans have a lot in common with Rush fans. Grimdark, for whatever that really is outside of 40k, seems to be the latest hot thing. Will have to wait and see how those current books hold up over time. 20 years out and MBotF still going strong.
Great as always (only at the half point so I hope it won't change ) but in a way as much as I love he ability to talk about those books today I'm happy that when I read them yrs ago I had no one to talk to and therefore I had no expectations or noise to distract me from the reading and my enjoyment of those books. I remember on my first read how I was expecting every book and dropping everything I was reading just to read the new book I got
Hi shmuel, I hope that you are enjoying the second half. I can't imagine the modern reading experience with all the theories, explanations, and notes, but I am glad that people are still enjoying the books enough to get involved. There are pros and cons to every approach, so it is a brave new world out there.
this video was so so so great. i've been a huge fan of the series for a few years now but haven't really entered the online space around it that much yet. this was a great start -- i loved everything you said. very bloody long essay ensuing... it seems mad to me that this series is so misconstrued and seen as controversial, just because steven erikson makes "experimental" writing choices that have been well known and well loved in other literary genres for centuries ..... it is almost as though fantasy readers themselves subscribe to the prejudice that quote-on-quote literary experts have against the genre, as though it really is and somehow should be 'inferior' to "PROPER" literature. there are many reasons why people do not have the time or mental energy to invest into these books, who turn to fantasy books in refuge from the trials of 'classic' lit. but i hate to see their difficulty counted as a strike against them, when really the only defining difference between malazan and some other non-fantasy series is that label of genre and all the expectations it brings. there's a quote from Claire Fallon's 'In Defence of "Difficult" Books' that i feel sums this whole discussion up perfectly: "What is deep, slow reading if not the process of reflecting on nuanced ideas, untangling thorny strands of thought, and imaginatively piecing together a world from nothing more than a collection of letters and symbols? What could better teach us to break down difficult arguments or ideas and to engage honestly with the incalculable complexity of life? The world will not become simpler just because our ways of writing and reading do, and by succumbing to this abbreviated version of literary life we only lose another tool for understanding the world as it really is.' what is the point of fantasy if not to reflect on the world as it really is through all the smoke and mirrors of what it might have been, or might be? even stories about dragons and immortal gods and all sorts of fantastical beings are really about people, even if only through contrast... again, it comes back to the issue of expectation. if you expect for malazan to be an escapist read, then you will be disappointed and stung! and that is okay! but i think that difficult books can help us to regain agency within the commodified production of books these days, and rekindle something exciting in the way we approach our lives.... i think also that there is a great sense of entitlement among readers these days, which is only understandable considering that this consumerist culture of literature literally breeds readers to expect their next read -- bought, ultimately, with their precious time -- to be the perfect product. accordingly, it must be short, snappy, insightful, well explained but not too well explained.... but what of what the author wants to write? must they always cater to their reader's demands and expectations? i think that it is perfectly reasonable for a writer to write in a particular way just because it interested them, or they wanted to push themselves, or they thought it would be fun. and then, for me as a reader at least, part of the experience becomes following the author along that journey ... I felt that especially with Toll the Hounds. it was like Erikson -- even more than usual -- really did what he wanted with that book, and it was marvellous from start to finish. it was such a pleasure to read because when a writer lets themselves do what they want to do, i swear you can actually feel it through the page. and i have mad respect for him just sticking to his guns and doing what he wants to do all these years, even in the face of such persistent misunderstanding and dismissal. not to turn this already ridiculously long comment into an actual essay, but Mark Danielewski said something like 'write for the reader who gets everything.' that is what steven erikson does, and i think people can feel very threatened and easily excluded by that approach. they think that it alienates them. but i disagree -- i think that difficult books can actually encourage a greater sense of communion with the text for those active readers that persevere with it. and it sounds so obvious to say that these books really ask you to engage with them -- to risk your precious time for perhaps uncertain reward -- but i think that this is a quality that should be celebrated. entitled readers cannot seem to understand that it's okay for not everything to be to their taste, and pretentious fans of the series who make them feel like idiots for not getting along with it certainly don't help. people get so defensive about their tastes as well -- i feel like that's another byproduct of the commodification of publishing. people's favourite books become signifiers for their identity, their interests, their cleverness, their politics... it's like cultural shorthand for who you are. which is ridiculous, but because there's so much being published all the time now, and like so much of the relentless barrage of information that is the internet, it's totally overwhelming, we have to cling to our few favourites in case we get lost or lose our sense of identity. and malazan, like so many other series, naturally resists being squeezed down into that kind of signifier ('what's the series about?', 'what's the message?', 'why's it your favourite?' -- these are brevity-defying questions). so when you're made to feel like an idiot for not getting along with malazan by certain pretentious fans championing their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, i think it's very understandable that you'd then turn and blame erikson or the series for being too difficult, too overwritten, too boring, too long, too confusing... because it's no longer just about what you like / don't like, it's about YOU -- your quality as a reader, an intellectual, a person, even. and it totally shouldn't be. but we are very defensive of our identities, and thus ensues carelessness with the division between complaint and criticism, subjective and objective. sorry, i really feel like i'm rambling now, and i might be totally misguided.... but really, everyone is allowed to like and dislike whatever they want! you are entitled to your own opinion! it is okay not to meet these books in the middle -- only do not mistake the complaints that you will have for criticisms! grrrrr it makes me very frustrated to see -- just from my peripheral perspective -- how much discourse around erikson's work is focused on this subject of complaints and criticism. of course, it is a vital discussion and it's very interesting, especially for people contemplating starting the series who are intimidated by it. but i would love to see more celebration of its 'difficulty'! there are far, far more things to praise about this series than there are to critique, in my opinion and many others', I'm sure! i probably just have not gone niche enough yet to find community with the die hards! soon, soon, once i've actually finally finished the series... but okay, i'm shutting up now. thanks for the awesome video :D will definitely check out more asap!
Thank you very much for watching, and for the really interesting comment. I hope you find other videos on the channel that pique your interest. People are free, welcome, and encouraged to discuss the things they like and dislike, and I hope that I am clear on that front. Where I draw the line is when a 'dislike' is used as a justification for an evaluative judgement of quality. When taste and preference become prescriptive instead of descriptive. There are plenty of great books, that are brilliantly written, and deeply engaging, that are just not my cup of tea. I don't describe the books as 'bad' simply because I don't like them. And while this has always been a tension in the discussion of art, it seems to me that there has been a significant increase in this attitude of personal preference being an evaluative judgement. Of literature being turned into 'content' to be consumed, rather than books to be read. But I could be wrong. Thank you again for the great comment.
I read gardens of the moon then deadhouse gates, went back and read gardens of the moon again and now feel as if i am set up to continue. People will say they aren't the same story because of the mostly different cast but there is a ton of stuff out of that first book that translate to the second i found... It's def different but thus far it is def worth the read.
@@ACriticalDragon two persons mutually establish a common ground upon which to scaffold a fruitful,entertaining and highly enlightening discourse. the joviality exuded doing something one has a passion for and then finding a kindred soul is a precious thing. a thing to revel with.
Your discussion on sexual violence made me think of this quote from Forge of Darkness I think most wouldn't consider this spoilers... “The body directly before him, however, was that of a child. The blue of the eyes was now covered in a milky film, giving it its only depth, since all that was behind that veil was flat, like iron shields or silver coins, sealed and deprived of all promise. They were, he told himself yet again, eyes that no longer worked, and the loss of that was beyond comprehension. He would paint this child’s face. He would paint it a thousand times. Ten thousand. He would offer the paintings as gifts to every man and every woman of the realm. And each time any one man or woman stirred awake the hearth gods of anger and hate, feeding the gaping mouth of violence and uttering pathetic lies about making things better, or right, or pure, or safe, he would give them yet another copy of this child’s face.”
Hi Bryson, there is no doubt that there are some difficult and distressing topics and scenes explored and examined in Erikson's writing. There is also no doubt that some readers will not like them, and some will actively put the books down. Personally I am glad that Erikson challenges us. Our individual mileage may vary about the inclusion of these things, but the sensitivity and compassion with which Erikson explores these aspects I personally feel is a great strength of the novels. Thanks so much for watching, and for the great quotation.
What a quote!!! It’s bold work he’s doing-not many have the courage to paint that portrait and that is unfortunately matched by the few who are willing to look at it. Appreciate your thoughtful comments as always @Bryson!
Lmao. As someone who went to high school in the '80s with the initials VD, I tend to be pretty specific myself about pronouncing other peoples' names correctly. Good thing all my apostrophes are silent. xD. I think we as fans need to get it into our heads that not everyone likes the things that we like, not everyone is at a stage in their lives that can appreciate the all the various themes and depth in these particular books. I read these as they came out, and read other books in between these books, and I missed a ton of things too, things I am now picking up in my re-read. Facebook and RU-vid didn't even *exist* until after book 6 of MBotF was out, so it was indeed a solo journey, clouded somewhat by the anticipation of the next book and then the next. Perhaps the complainers are not simply mature enough, or experienced enough readers to "get it". They shouldn't be shamed for it. Pitied perhaps. xD.
Thanks for watching and the thoughtful comment. There are certain narrative styles that I like more than others, and certainly there are authors that I like more than others. In fact, it is very rare for me to come across a book that didn't have some aspect that I found interesting. But that is very different to reading for pleasure. Fantasy Literature is a big house with room for everyone.
@@ACriticalDragon It's odd though. I like certain books more than others, and the writers that I like also seem to like those books. I read the Thomas Covenant books, and the Culture books, as well as the (Frank Herbert) Dune novels long before I read Malazan and learned what Erikson's influences were, and they remain some of my favourites. For some reason, their style/type/flavour/whatever resonates and writers who diverge from that aren't as "good", to me, as the ones who don't, even if they have the same level of intricacy or character development. Like Wheel of Time, myself and a bunch of friends were all reading that, book by book as they came out, then Jordan up and died, and we all stopped, but now, I really don't know if I ever want to drag myself though 14 books just to find out the end, the appeal is just gone. But I'm sure you probably will be thinking the same after you review that final STD episode. (As an aside, they are filming a new series with the Pike character, I only found out because one of the locations is in the same city as my office)
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd I reread the first 8 books of Wot and then completed the series during lock down. It was a very different experience to how I remembered it. I, and Fantasy storytelling, have changed a lot in the last 15 years. But we all have our own preferences and styles/stories that we enjoy. Lots of room for all sorts of readers and fans in Fantasy. It isn't a zero sum game.
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd I am very jealous of you getting to see some of the series being filmed. I would love to be able to chat to professional series writers about the ins and outs of the technical and practical limitations on writing an SF or Fantasy show.
The Wheel of Time is definitely too long 😂 It feels more a criticism rather than a complaint for that series Whereas Malazan Book of the Fallen needs to be 10 books long
Hi James, This was what I was talking about when I was discussing pacing and 'slog'. It can be a valid criticism (and not just a personal complaint), especially if the material in question is empty prose that is not developing anything or adding to anything (character, narrative, the world, tone, theme, or is incredibly repetitive of already well established aspects) but the decision on that will always have an element of subjectivity. The author clearly thought it was necessary, but some (or even a lot) of readers might not. If a reader is deeply invested in the book and just wants more time with those characters, or in the world, then those sections that we might identify as 'extraneous' still serve a narrative function and purpose for that reader. So it becomes a balancing act. With Erikson's writing, because he packs so much into the subtext, it is difficult to argue that the prose is 'empty'. But we could argue that some sections are beyond what is 'necessary'. But that involves a value judgement about necessity, and reduces the importance of artistic expression... which again is a personal and subjective opinion. So we always have to balance subjective against objective, because what is 'objective' to us might not be 'objective' to a lot of other readers. But there are certainly examples in Malazan in which Erikson is deliberately drawing out and returning to certain threads to engender a feeling of trudging, repetitious motion, and feelings of exhaustion in the reader that mimic what the characters are feeling. That meant that when the pay off arrives the relief is that much greater. Could he have achieved the same effect in fewer words with fewer sections? Possibly. But he can guarantee the effect with what he did. Some readers will get it immediately, others will need more time... so he had to use his judgement about what was necessary for this imagined reader. So then as critics/editors/readers we have to take a step back and think beyond our personal response to think of a broader response. If at that stage we still feel like it was too much, then we arrive at criticism rather than personal complaint.
@@ACriticalDragon Thank you for taking the time to reply to me Much like the Malazan books, if it's a long read, it's probably for a reason Thank you so much for the video with Iskar
@@ACriticalDragon I don't see many booktubers discussing the books written by David Gemmell He's one of my favourite fantasy authors but doesn't seem to generate a lot of discussion Would you ever consider a critique of his Drenai saga?
But there's no objective criticism either . Every critical thought comes from a mind of a person, thus it is subjective by default, and it also colored by "crititic" experiences, knowledge and many other subjective things. Criticism may sound more "objective" and academic from the mouth of highly intelligent person who is good with words, but sometimes it could be absolutely the same as complaints, the difference only in phrasing. That's not to say there's no difference between them, but both complaints and criticism are subjective matters.
Perception of reality is a subjective matter. Consciousness is a subjective filter. Even the choice of what you choose to focus on as important is a subjective choice. But we can attempt to be more objective (hence the use of specific literary critical techniques) rather than simply rely on personal feelings and reader response. Even with literary criticism there is generally a need to set context and framing, and while yes the analysis will be 'subjective' it will yield results within a certain limited range. Depending on focus and framing, that range can actually be quite narrow. But given that perception of art is subject to not only personal taste, but also cultural evaluation (which in turn can be radically different within different time periods evrn within the same cultural group) there is never going to be an absolutely objective take. But just because all perception of art is in some part subjective does not mean that you extend the argument to absurdist proportions. A personal reader response is a valid response to the text, but it is not the only way to analyse and evaluate texts. The New Critics attempted to create objective criteria and approaches to textual analysis, but most of those don't take account of reader response. Criticism can tend toward a more objective stance typically because the analyst uses a more complex system than 'How did I feel about the book'. 'This book is boring' while a valid personal reader response is typically without useful analytical data. It is solely a subjective take. 'Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 7 slow narrative pacing in order to explore/develop/expand X.' identifies a change in pace, and is less subjective. So yes, analysis is subjective in that it will be performed by a person with a certain level of training, knowledge of the techniques, and who also has a personal reader experience, but it is more' objective' in its evaluation. Reader Response is solely subjective and often influenced by unknown and unknowable individual factors that even that reader may not be aware of. The critic, on the other hand, has set known and knowable criteria and lenses in place. So I absolutely reject the notion that the only difference is how they sound or are articulated. That is extremely insulting and completely dismisses the expertise, training, and study necessary to develop as a critic. I can't tell you how you should feel about a book, that goes to your personal subjective response. I can, however, identify and explain a lot of what a book is doing, how it does it, and make (upon occasion) fairly accurate assessments of what an author was trying to achieve, and sometimes be able to show how and why aspects didn't work or did work. To suggest that is the same as how everyone reads completely dismisses my expertise. If everyone read that way then I wouldn't need to do videos pointing out very simple and obvious techniques as all readers would already know them. I believe that all readers can expand and deepen their appreciation of texts, that all readers can become more insightful and knowledgable about texts and analysis, but it is a process requiring work and study for most of us. Maybe you are one of the blessed few who has an intrinsic gift for this and understand intuitively how complex narrative is, that narrative meaning is constructed within a specific and finite frame. Alternatively maybe you think it is all incredibly simple and a story is just a story.
@@ACriticalDragon Ah, I see where the misunderstanding comes from, at least on my side. To me it feels that what you're referring to is "analysis", not "criticism". I am not sure if it is just me, but I always understood the term "criticism" as "the practice of judging the merits and faults of something", which it is broad definition. And I think most people do take it as that. Whereas, literary criticism is "the comparison, analysis, interpretation, and/or evaluation of works of literature". That, of course, is drastically different from the term I operated under while writing the previous comment. So yes, I agree with everything you said, and I by any means didn't want to insult you or other people who study literature for life - but for me all of that was falling under the definition of "analysis", not "criticism", and for sure people with greater literature and cultural knowledge, knowledge of literary techniques and methods can analyze and dissect text to their sublime meanings better than just casual readers, that's why they are professionals in that field. And that's why they probably like more than a casual reader, because they have a wide set of expectations - anyway, you talked about that, I agree with you. My bad, should have set the terms straight. Maybe you talked about it in other videos and I just didn't know, but I feel like most people would fall into this trap, as I did. And just to give an example from my mind: when you said (and I am paraphrasing to the best of my memory) "Erikson uses a narrative device where he does not tell a reader who is talking until the end of the scene, and only at the end of the scene you realize who are the characters and you go back and reread the entire section with a new set of eyes; it is a device not commonly used in fantasy, but very prominent in other types of literature" - so to me that sounds like analysis. It does not feel like you're criticizing anything at all here, you're simply stating the facts about Erikson's narrative choices. The criticism for me would be in addition to that statement say "Erikson overdoes that a wee bit, as a reader you can always find yourself in a situation that you need reread every second scene in order to understand who is talking, and those scenes don't actually bring any mystery or thrill of discovering who the characters are, they just, again and again, overcomplicate things and confuse a reader even more in places where no confusion should even be present" - or something like that. That would have a "criticizing" feel to it (for me). And, returning to my prior statement, the fact that it criticizes the use - or should I say the overuse - of this technique comes from subjective feel of the author of these lines (in this case me) that the technique 1) overused 2) overcomplicates things when there's no need for that. But both of those are subjective, - some might not even notice this obfuscation or not be bothered by it being used endless number of times, - despite me thinking that I actually speaking more or less objectively in those lines. I guess that's what I meant when I said, that despite criticism is "more objective" it is still subjective. Of course, if criticism is defined as I found literary criticism is defined, and is "interpretation, and/or evaluation of works of literature", my example is not correct then. But this goes into the debate of literary criticism vs literary theory. After a lifetime of understanding criticism in its broad term I have hard time why literary critiques chose the word "criticism" over "theory" or "analysis", haha. My fault :-) That also explains my subconscious half-a-question "Why is the channel called A Critical Dragon, not An Analytical Dragon" :-)
Literary theories are specific analytical lenses and approaches to thinking about, analysing, or reconceptualising literature. Literary criticism is the practice of using these theories. There is no literary theory versus literary criticism debate. In your example you are asking for an evaluative judgment of something as good or bad, in this case Erikson's withholding of a name in dialogue exchanges, which is completely and utterly subjective. You use the term 'overused' which clearly implies there is a level of use which is acceptable and one that is not. I have been on record multiple times saying that is an aspect of Erikson's writing that used to irritate me sometimes. Is it a major gripe? No. It is incredibly minor. But in 10 books of a total of circa 3.2 million words, how many times does it happen? How many are fine and how many make it cross the threshold into overused? How many lines between introducing a line of dialogue and introducing the name of the character qualifies as not doing it fast enough? What is the number between good and bad here? That is entirely subjective, and, I have said that at times it has irked me, but that is not useful information. The number of times it irks me is not going to be the same as the number of times it irritates you. Plus, at the end of the day, is it really so onerous to look back a couple of paragraphs? In a ten book series, that is something you think deserves serious consideration and discussion? So instead of discussing the really interesting things that Erikson does well, I should devote time to a minor quibble I have with a stylistic choice that is common in modernist writing and short story writing? Does having a sense of perspective on the relative worth go out the window in order to talk about some minor 'complaint' so people can 'feel' that I am objective? Even though mentioning it clearly overemphasises its importance? If I have a 1hr video and I like 99.99% then if I am being fair in my representation of good versus bad I should spend roughly 36 seconds on the negative... That would be fair and balanced. But that is not what people do. They over-emphasise the negative. I did a video about the use of 'ochre' and how people 'felt' it was overused, and pointed out that it isn't. It doesn't stop people feeling that way if they think it is a rare word. But people for whom the word was common didn't notice its use at all. That is subjectivity of 'overused'. When people talk about pacing in Malazan they usually have no objective scale, just that a section felt really slow, or didn't serve the narrative, or Erikson could have done it quicker... When what they generally mean is, 'I didn't enjoy that section because I wanted something else.' How slow is slow? What is the objective measurement here? This is a completely subjective perception of the book that does not relate to narrative time, reading time, or any other measurement of time. Not being negatively critical of that doesn't mean I don't criticise Erikson, it just means I don't think it has any merit as a valid criticism as those sections clearly had purpose, meaning, and content. Just because someone doesn't like them doesn't make it a weakness of the book, it is a personal preference of the reader. So instead of saying this is good or bad, I highlight that it exists and why it might be there, and whether or not this is common or uncommon. Your personal threshold for that technique may be radically different to mine. So why would I say it is good or bad? Personal reading experience is just that, personal and individual. Then I leave it up to the viewer/reader to decide if that is something that bothers them, interests them, and so on. So the difference between what we are talking about is I identify what a text does using various different theories and techniques (i.e. the process of literary criticism, also known as 'criticism'), I identify them, I talk about their various effects, I talk about whether they are common or uncommon, and I talk about why they might be of interest. I don't review books. I have never pretended to review books on this channel. I generally talk about the things that interest me, positive or negative. I frequently answer comments and say whether or not I liked a book or a film that someone mentions, but I am more likely to say something about an aspect of that book I enjoyed, not whether I liked the whole book. I don't complain about aspects of books I don't like because much of that is subjective to me as a reader, and it isn't what I wanted to do with my channel, although I have mentioned narrative aspects of Erikson's work that I didn't enjoy or that I think he would differently now. There are literally thousands of youtubers out there who complain about books and will tell you all about their reading experience. I am just not one of them. I try to talk about what a book does and leave it up to you to judge if that is something that will interest you or annoy you. When I talk about different things a book does with Philip or other RU-vidrs I am not, at any point, offering a review. I am talking about the things in a book that interest me, or that I think might be of interest to other people. I love books and narrative. I am passionate about books and narrative. I like talking about those aspects of a book or narrative that interest me, impress me, or are fascinating in how they are used. I also do explanations of things. And in an explanation you don't offer a personal judgement. If people hire me as an editor I employ a whole different approach. But this channel is a hobby for me to talk about the things I want to talk about. I talk honestly about all these things, and I don't lie, dissemble, hide, or obfuscate, but I try to be positive because there is enough negative sneering and posturing online that I don't need to add to it. These are my actual thoughts about the uses of narrative in the text, and the things that I think are worth talking about. Even books I actively dislike, if I were to do a video on one of them, it would likely be on aspect of that book that I found interesting or worth talking about. Or I can talk about aspects of narrative that I actively dislike but I try to explain them in a non-pejorative way because other people may like them. My personal taste is not relevant to my discussion of the technique. I don't do TBR videos. I don't do Weekly or monthly updates. I don't do reviews. I don't do book haul videos. And I don't pretend that my personal impression of a book is in someway an evaluation of the book and not my reading tastes. There are lots of channels that do these things, if that is what you want to watch, go watch them. People seem to mistake my genuine enjoyment of Erikson's work as some sort of fan-eyed worship. The books aren't perfect. There are aspects I enjoy significantly more than others. But my taste and preference is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the things that interest me and that I really enjoy. And, to be perfectly honest, my personal gripes with what Erikson does are incredibly minimal. I could make up a bunch of stuff to complain about if that would make people feel better, if they think that is what being a 'critic' is, but that would be intellectually dishonest and pandering. I don't pretend to offer personal, biased, subjective, negative reviews, I offer actual discussion of the techniques authors use. If that is not what you want to watch then I am sorry to lose a subscriber.
@@ACriticalDragon man, you take my comments way too personal and serious :-) I never said I didn't like the video, your thoughts or approach. Never said I wanted something different of you, in fact your videos a quite unique and I value them for what they do. I am not sure where you're getting that "lost a subscriber" vibe. I'll try to make it short, in regards of that aspect of Erikson's writing of not stating the names... No, I don't imply there's a certain amount of times you can do that when I say "overuse". Neither do I mean it should be exactly within 5 starting lines of a paragraph or within two paragraphs, I don't. What I mean is, again subjective, but maybe an author could have thought "hmm, maybe this obfuscation does not need to be there, i achieve nothing, but I love it, so to hell with it", but then after doing it multiple times maybe he should have thought "oh, maybe be I overdone it a bit, let me return and see of those sections read ok and don't introduce unnecessary confusion". Or maybe author shouldn't have thought that at all. After all, the level of mental gymnastics that Erikson can do is way higher than what I, more or less regular reader, can do. This is not measured by certain numbers or level bars, as you point out when you want to show how silly the argument is. It is more of a subjective, maybe immeasurable "mass" of these occurrences. Does not mean I need exactly 5 of them. And does not mean there's a perfect amount of them. I absolutely agree (and I don't know who does not), what maybe "too much" for one reader is just enough or not enough for another. But in general, author might think about these things and decide "maybe I should change some things, so more readers enjoy it easier" or maybe he might not. I never sad it was bad or good either. What I said is that for the majority of readers it can be tiresome to figure this stuff out again and again and again where there seemingly no point in using this techniques (there are some great moments in Erikson's writing where it actually makes total sense). So by having this argument I am criticizing that aspect of Erikson's writing, because I think it was objectively over the top in DoD (it really did bother me very much in DoD, of all books. And yes, I was annoyed that I have to read the conversation again because I understood nothing - but that's another matter). Now, the fact that it didn't bother some readers or maybe bothered some other readers too much is a different topic. You might like it or you might like it not, that's fine. But is there and it could be too much. That's my criticism. I am sure that's not how a proper criticism should work and I am making a great mistake not knowing how to criticize properly or what the word means, but I admitted that in my second comment. However, to me there's a vast difference between my "couch" version of criticism and just a complaint like "man, Erikson obfuscates everything, hate it". The latter has no objective... nothing (except the word obfuscation, which is obviously one of favorite Erikson's devices, ha), it is just a subjective statement. By the way, I did finish Malazan a few days ago and at the end of the day I liked it much more than I disliked certain sections. Sometimes I hang up on details, so there were some sections that baffled me tremendously and a lot of sections/characters I didn't care for. So of course you don't have to talk about the negative aspects of it if you have only 0.01% negative impression from it. And I never said you should. I didn't say anything, in fact, except explaining why I think criticism is subjective too until I learned that academics define criticism as analysis (forgive me my simplification here). Now I have absolutely no disagreement with your, operating with these terms.
Hi Christian, everything is safe up to Memories of Ice EXCEPT skip 1 hr 5 minutes to 1hr 8 minutes and you should be absolutely safe. There is reference to something that you probably won't understand as a spoiler, but it is a spoiler. Sorry about that.
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd yeah I never shut up about it and I spam his videos with comments and love when my readalong catches up to a new level of spoilers
To summarise : active reading isn't for the instant gratification modern generation. By the way, nice copy of "Book of the New Sun" to your left. Try listening to that on audiobook ... I dare you ! ;)
*We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard defining edges* Oh boy, I didn't notice the BotNS copy on AP's shelf... What I'd pay to get a 2h video on New Sun+Malazan comparative analysis 😂 New Sun has the dubious honor of having a chapter titled "The eyes of the world" (WoT crowd!) and another one titles "Master of the *house of chains* "( Malazan crowd!) 😛
@@oniflrog4487 I am going to tackle BotNS later on in the year. At present MBotF and NotME, combined with occasional forays into other topics has my plate pretty full. But I am definitely going to tackle BotNS at some point this year.
@@ACriticalDragon At least they are comparatively short. Will be reading the next one soon after Fall of Hyperion. (amazing) Wondering if you have read Broken Empire as I find a lot of similarities in Lawrence's style in the use of first person and flashbacks.
Hi Jeremy, thanks for watching and commenting. I remember devouring Eddings books when they came out, but I am not so sure that they have aged that well. But they were a foundational part of my early fantasy diet.
@@ACriticalDragon I probably wouldn't reread them but I'm so glad I went through them. Like you they where among the first books I read. That was many years ago now. Very good memories.
@@martinjg3662 One of these days, Martin, you will realise the dream of being first :) Thanks for watching, I hope that you enjoy the chat that Iskar and I had.
I don't just read for entertainment. Thomas Covenant and The second Apocalypse wouldn't be among my favourite series if I just wanted "fun". I actually stopped listening to the ten very big books podcast, because they were so "offended" by the sexual violence. I even know a victim in real life and this tiptoeing around the issues and banning it from literature doesn't help. As long as it is realistic and is not just for shock it is completely valid and shouldn't even be questioned. There are still millions of people on this planet in modern times getting forcefully circumcised and mutilated and it actually needs to be talked about MORE not less. Pretending it isn't happening doesn't help. Its not like Erikson is endorsing it ffs. Edit: This comment ended up a bit more emotional than I intended ^^
That’s what these books do to us, no worries... the stuff you pointed out are some of the things that I really love about what these books stimulate in me! Some people are just into reading for different reasons, or are coming from a different place emotionally or whatever that they might not want or be ready for that type of work. Appreciate your thoughts and glad you liked the collab!!
@@IskarJarak Thank you for your kind words. Indeed I was a bit worried how my comment might come across. Maybe you two could do another collaboration in the future :)
I don't think any of the violence or sexual violence is portrayed for any other reason than to bring us up short and make us think about it. It's never lurid or explicit in its presentation, it's just matter-of-fact. The first chapter of the first book has a guy (are all your mages called Eric?) cut in half with his guts spilling out. Now I can't say with any authority how a victim of rape would contrast that scene with a scene of rape, but it's still pretty brutal. Yet somehow, at least in north american culture, one type of violence can be talked about and one must not be. If we keep shutting the door on it, nothing will change. It's neither nice nor pleasant, but it needs to be discussed, and maybe, if can discuss it context of a 'fantasy' novel, everntually we might be able to do it in the context of the commonly ugly world we live in.
Hi King Plunger. Those particular aspects are very powerful, emotive, and difficult scenes. For some people they do not want to read them, others may find them too distressing, for some of us it is moving or cathartic... there are a multitude of responses... some we will agree with, some will be the antithesis of our approach or reasoning. I are thankful and appreciative of how Erikson treats those themes and aspects in his writing. I think they are important, and are an important part of the series. But just as I want others to respect my choices, I have to extend the same respect to them, even if I disagree with them. And that can be very hard sometimes, especially when I am passionate about something and care deeply about it. I am certainly a very different reader now than I was 20 years ago, and times change, perceptions change, values change. It is a long and complicated and messy journey. So I completely understand your passion here.
@@ACriticalDragon you are right and I don't blame people for not wanting to read about these terrible things, some just want "fun" and I can respect that. BUT I don't think that it is okay to say things like "This shouldn't be in the novel and has no purpose " (which is basically what you talked about in this collab) or having double standards and criticising these types of violence, but having no problem with all the other terrible things that happen in the malazan series which are at least just as brutal.
