Spoiler Talk: Steven Erikson's Memories of Ice (Malazan Book of the Fallen 3) with Philip Chase 

That is a great character, and also a wonderful example of how a minor character, with a tiny amount of implied backstory, can have a huge emotional impact. Not every character needs to be drawn out over hundreds of pages to hit home. Thanks for the great comment.

Memories of Ice is a great book and there are some really good emotional punches thrown in there. I continue to be impressed with how Erikson manages to keep each book feeling unique. Thanks for watching.

@@ACriticalDragon Thanks for putting out the content!

You are very welcome.

Cried at that too. The whole end of the book is just so emotionally charged.

Oh, I remember that. Same reaction here.

It is a great storyline, and I think some aspects of it are extremely powerful. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@ACriticalDragon No probs. Thanks for the review.

Thank you for being my partner in crime. These chats are so much fun to do and are something that I look forward to every time.

Yes, yes I would watch 10 hours of this. And more 😘

And my editing skills are of course truly awesome... so seamless... no one can spot those amazing edits when the connection completely froze up and I totally hid that.

@@robpaul7544 Aww, shucks. Thanks, Rob! 😊

@@ACriticalDragon Well, your editing job was better than my previous one, where I left in the always flattering screen freeze! Why don’t screen freezes happen when we’re looking gorgeous? I was actually pretty impressed with your result.

The reaction of the others, and how Erikson portrays that scene, is incredibly powerful. I can completely understand that you more to seeing other's grief and respond in empathy. It is a fantastic scene.

Completely agree. Iktovians death hit me much harder than whiskeyjacks.

Same! It always seemed to me that Whiskeyjack got a lot of juice from just having a cool name lol. But in Memories of Ice we finally get a glimpse I to why he's so great and then he's gone!

Great points, and I completely agree. I really regret that Philip and I didn't get around to discussing Tool and Toc in depth.

I have read Memories 3 times now and I cry everytime I get to the death of WhiskeyJack

These chats need to be about 10 times longer so that Philip and I can cover most of the things, as it is, there is so much we had to leave out. Thanks for watching.

@@ACriticalDragon That would be awesome, but we all gotta sleep sometimes. After all we sleep, to dream. 😂

Which shows your excellent taste!

Thanks for the trust. I hope you didn't regret it.

Gruntle going reverse D'vers was pretty amazing.

Three billy goats gruff!

Are you trying to blame the rise in goat sacrifices on Philip and I? We have alibis... for whenever they happened.

@@ACriticalDragon oh no. It just worked the first l, second, and third times.

Well that explains what happened to the three billy goats gruff after the story.

Hi Johanna, thank you for watching. Always so wonderful to hear from you. I love the fact that this series gives us all so much room for different interpretations and analysis. It encourages discussion rather than 'this is the only way you can view this'. What is even better is that in the comments section of the videos I get to see all these different perspectives that add to my appreciation of the narrative. Thank you again for watching.

@@ACriticalDragon Thank you! I feel so fortunate to get to watch these discussions. They certainly enrich my reading experience of this wonderful series!

I am glad that you enjoyed the discussion and I will certainly be tuning in to hear your thoughts on the book.

“For best results, sprinkle on a bit of Philip Chase”

Philip, I know we are friends, but don't expect me to be sprinkling on any part of you. I don't care if you nominate one bit in particular. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The dangers of dangling your modifier.

@@ACriticalDragon 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I’ll never again be able to read “With added Philip Chase” without breaking out in laughter.

So a Chase chaser?

Hi Ruthan, so good to see you. There is never enough time to talk about everything. There is never enough time to talk about even half of the things that you want to cover, and to cover them in the depth that you want... but we do our best. I am glad that you enjoyed the chat. Hopefully I will get a chance to speak to you soon.

The Gruntle part reminds me of Karsa. Erikson doesn't try to justify a genocidal rapist in his case, he just writes different characters with different motivations and backgrounds such as in real life

Language is usage, as you said, and i know it's not a big deal, but my inner rattlesnake rattles any time I see or hear "comprised of"

The whole thread with Toc, Tool and Envy et al was brilliant. Absolutely fascinating dynamics at play in the group and in the progression of the story, and then how it interweaves into the culminating narrative event. Thanks for watching.

Well it can't be for the bad jokes, I think that Philip and I have a very 'dad' sense of humour and revel in bad jokes.

Thank you for the great comment. I think that this is one of those things that is the trope well done, but it still has baggage from the trope. I still think that inverting the order of the child banner and Stonny would have been just as effective and would have avoided the trope, but I still think it is good writing and doesn't treat Stonny flippantly nor with casual disregard. I think it is one of Erikson's strengths as a writer that he tries to see/show things from multiple perspectives. But I greatly respect your perspective, thank you for sharing it.

@@ACriticalDragonI found your point on this trope interesting and definitely agree on a greater scale, however what made me wonder about this particular scene and the question of “personal motive” for Gruntle is the influence of Treach. It is not explored much (so far, and I haven’t finished the whole series just yet) but we do know that gods and ascendants like to intervene, manipulate and use mortals for their plans. I would propose a more subtle reading of said “motive”: Gruntle definitely has an intense emotional reaction seeing his friend in such pain and in a vulnerable state, that knocks him out of his insular self-pity. Treach likely had his eyes on him already and taking advantage of this deeply emotional state of Gruntle, spins the situation to his own advantage. Hence Gruntle being in an animalistic state throughout the whole siege, only coming back to himself after he was fully transformed and has carried out the task that Treach was using him for. I would be really interested in your thoughts about this interpretation, thanks for your videos AP, they’re always so engaging to watch!

'Literally turns my stomach'... you are killing me... I am really glad you enjoyed the video. Thank you so much for watching and for taking the time to add great comments. I really appreciate it.

Thanks Rox, always a pleasure to hear from you. I always appreciate the thoughtful comments you leave.

@@ACriticalDragon thank you for all these great videos! As soon as I see a new video from you, I inform my boyfriend about it and we start watching it. It's always a delight! Oh and thank you for the kind words, you humble me with your kindness.

Thanks, Rox - your support means a ton to us!

@@PhilipChaseTheBestofFantasy and thank you, your awesome videos mean a ton to me! :)

Thanks Jagarr. I am not the final say on anything, but I thought that it was worth raising and discussing.

There is always more to discuss but, alas, time is fleeting and ephermal, and waits for no one. But they do say, 'Always leave them wanting more.' I hope that you enjoyed it, thank you for watching.

I'm glad that you loved the book, and pleased that you enjoyed the chat.

I think that there are a lot of modern fantasy novels that go far beyond what is depicted here, and not all of them have the same sense of compassion woven into the narrative. But it is a brutal world depicted.

​@@ACriticalDragon that might be what makes it such a violent thing. you know there's a different side to this same coin. you know what's possible.

@A Critical Dragon I'm new to fantasy. Malazan Book of the Fallen was my first fantasy and is now my all time favourite book/series. Since finishing that series and both Kharkanas books, I have read Esslemont, Abercrombie, Hobb, Bakker, Lynch and also tried but didn't like Sanderson. So far nothing has come close to the scale of violence found in MoI. Still a good book since Erikson's writing is pure genius - the best I have ever read.

So jumped right in at the deep end. I am a big fan of Robin Hobb. She writes great books, and utilises many of the same writing techniques and elements that I so appreciate in the MBotF. I hope that you are enjoying the videos. Thanks for watching.

Hi Francois. I am very glad that you enjoyed it. Thank you for watching and leaving a comment. Great to hear from you.

I am glad that you are enjoying them. Thanks for watching.

I hope that you enjoy the rest of the discussion. Thanks for watching.

Hi Robert, thanks for watching and the great comments. As you point out Itkovian's actions can be justified from one perspective, but we also have that ethical dilemna then of the more utilitarian or consequentialist perspective. So, for me at least, it raises these fascinating questions about our own ethical perspectives and how we judge problems and issues. So it is a fascinating look at the complexity of morality and how there are rarely easy answers. As to the plan for Coral, this has been raised a few times now so I might make a video rather than typing out a long explanation, but for me the answer lies in the historical example of the race to Berlin in WW2 and considering the broader context of the Malazan Empire.

@@ACriticalDragon Thank you for your response. I like how interestingly Erikson portrays these complex moral questions, and the fantasy genre makes it possible to put them in a perspective that a story in a "non-fantasy" setting would not allow. Not only does Erikson write a wide range of characters with different stances and explicitly point out that right and wrong are defined by the majority (or victors in history), he illustrates via Tool how that majority can be just as mistaken. There was somebody in the book (sorry, I forget who, maybe Tool's sister) who says s/he wants to apologize to Tool and tell him he was right and everybody else wrong at the first gathering. I feel hearing that from a T'lan Imass is kind of a humbling experience for the human reader, makes one wonder about value of conceding points in heated debates. I'd love a separate video about Coral, especially if others keep bringing this up as well. I hope you'll find the time to do it some day.

I am very happy that you enjoyed it.

I am glad that you enjoyed them so far. I am really happy that you are enjoying the videos. Thanks for watching.

I am glad that you are enjoying the discussions. Hopefully they add to your enjoyment of the series. Thanks for watching.

@@ACriticalDragon Just one thing. I know I'm a guy in his mid-forties, and the series is all about deep things, thick plots, solid construction of characters and stuff but, stuff for mature and itelligent readers. But right now, I just can think "man, I need more seguleh, say me this is not the only book with seguleh. I need a book, a videogame, and a comic book series turned into 3 seasons of AppleTv show of the seguleh" 😂

I am very pleased to hear that you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching and for letting me know that you liked it. I appreciate the support.

You aren't late. The party doesn't start until you get here.

Thank you, I am glad that you are enjoying them.

I am very happy that you enjoyed them and that they are proving interesting.

I am very glad that you enjoyed it. These chats with Philip are a lot of fun.

I am so glad that you are enjoying the videos. I really hope that they have helped increase your enjoyment of the series.

I am so pleased that you are enjoying the discussions. Thanks for stopping by and letting me know.

Hi Carlo, thanks for watching. The complexity of barbarism versus civilisation and tribal versus empire questions resonate throughout the entire series and only grow more complex as the series continues. But the Life of Brian quotation is a great one.

Picker's thought is pretty emotive. Thanks for watching, I am glad that you are enjoying the videos. I hope that you enjoy the rest of the series as well as the rest of the videos.

You are very welcome. I am glad that you are enjoying them. It is great to be able to discuss these books with people as it helps me explore everything that Esslemont and Erikson have created.

I am glad that you enjoyed it. But no reason to rush GotM, plenty of time to read them all. 😊

I totally agree.

There are 2 trade paperback editions. They are quite / very expensive . If u pop over to the unabridged burners discord from Iskar Jarek , I have posted a list of trade paperback isbn. I can confirm they exist. I have one on my shelf;) I agree we need a reprint though .

I am really happy that you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.

Hi Jake, I am glad that you enjoyed the discussion. As to Korlat, we all have characters that we wish had more page time, and given the number of cahracters I am sure that we would all want more development of many of them. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@ACriticalDragon So true! If I got my wish the book would probably be 3k pages lol Also I suppose I shouldn't complain about this when I simultaneously complain about not really understanding why everyone thinks Whiskeyjack is so great (prior to Memories of Ice) when Korlat is our window into that, and she's pretty perfect for that as his lover.

ooof. Can you imagine the complaints if these books were any longer?

Thank you for watching and the very kind comments. We will no doubt be addressing the Stonny storyline when we get to it, so it will be a while. But I think that even within that scene Erikson treats Stonny with care and compassion, for me the issue is that Gruntle's pov restricts the avenues that Erikson usually employs. So I don't necessarily think that he was careless here, but rather was locked into a subjective pov that dictated the response. It is an interesting narrative structural issue that has unintended consequences some 20 years after it was written.

I am glad that you enjoyed it. Thank you for watching, and you are always welcome to comment. I can't guarantee that I will see the comment or respond, but I do try.

I agree. I think that it is handled well. From a narrative perspective the main elements of the trope are still present. That is why we were discussing the how being more important than the what. How Erikson used the trope, which has a fairly high incidence rate of being used very poorly, shows, at least to me, that the trope can be well deployed. So I am very glad that this came across in the video.

Hi Cabiel, thank you so much for watching and for the very thoughtful comment. I really appreciate it. MoI is a great read, and I am really happy that you enjoyed it. Ps. Great point about the humour.

Hi Matt, I am so pleased that these videos are interesting you, I hope that you are enjoying them too. Thanks for watching.

Pina Colada in a Pint Glass might be more apt.

If I have proved anything with chatting with Philip, it is that sometimes my mind wanders to strange, strange places... Sorry/Not sorry. :) If I have to live with my brain, then I think it only fair to inflict it on everyone else. Although now I want a Malazan version of the Pina Colada song. This is such a great book, and I will try to cover so more interesting elements over the next month.

@@ACriticalDragon Quorl milk is a tough rhyme...

Caresses like silk.

@@ACriticalDragon we waived the flag of surrender, before the night none could remember This might be more of a country tune than an Escape rewrite. Quorl milk makes her clothes come off comes to mind.

There are a couple of interesting points here. Firstly, Itkovian could not know the full ramifications of his actions. He acted with the best of intentions and with the knowledge of the moment. Secondly, if someone has suffered for years are we really going to tell them to wait until it is more convenient for us? Thirdly, if we say that he should have waited are we making a judgement that the Imass lives are worth less than the human lives? Lastly, this was a human conflict, why should the Imass be involved at all? What I really appreciate about this storyline and decision is that it is truly complex without easy answers. And Erikson gives us the freedom and opportunity to really consider the ramifications, to weigh up our judgments. We know and like a lot of the military characters, the Imass are strangers, so we of course want our friends to survive, but that means that we value people we know far more than strangers. So it is revealing about our priorities and beliefs.

@@ACriticalDragon those are some really good points and I know my gripe came from an emotional standpoint. I am still trying to recover from this book. I do think it is natural for us to prioritise the wellbeing of those we know and care for over strangers. One could also argue that the Imass damned themselves from the beginning by invoking the Ritual for something which looks a lot like genocide.. However, something which I appreciate and love about Erikson's books is that nothing is, in fact, black and white and it's impossible not to sympathise with each side. I think that adds to the tragic tone of his stories. He makes it hard to judge and condemn. Well.. except Kallor. I hate that horrible rat passionately right now.

@@irinaj8716 I just finished MoI and I still don't know what comes after but imagine Whiskeyjack's leg hadn't broke and finished off Kallor how much Malazan could've changed

I am glad that you enjoyed the talk. There is so much that we just didn't get around to. The book is so full of worthy scenes, characters, topics, and themes. I think you are right about Stonny. I can see how it might not bother some people, but I can also see how other readers will be annoyed or hurt by it. It is a very difficult topic to discuss because emotions and tensions can be so high in relation to the topic, and we can never tell what a reader's personal background is. I don't think it is the worst example of this trope, and I think that it is actually handled relatively well in the novel, even though it has now become such a negative trope, but I thought it was worth raising and discussing.

In regard to Gruntle, it is not that his actions are not justified, it is that the motivation of his actions are assault of a female friend.. that is literally the trope. It has nothing whatsoever to do with realism, the trope is using a female character's abuse to further the actions of a male character. That is what happens here. If the sequence had been reversed (the child standard and then Stonny) then the trope wouldn't be present as the motivating factor was the child, not Stonny.

Oh, and I always read SIlverfox's age as being more relevant to her relationship to Mhybe. She's an older child, twelve summers? when Paran arrives, at which point Mhybe’s insisting she wouldn’t hate her. When the army begins its march, she has aged five years, so late adolescence and the verge of adulthood, which is typically associated with separation from the mother/parents.

I completely agree that Gruntle's characterisation is consistent, logical, and well developed. You are right that it fits with the character arc. My point concerns the use of the trope as the instigating factor. The rape is the thing that spurs him to action. That trope has become increasingly overused over time. I think that were Erikson writing this scene now he would do it differently. As you point out, Erikson could have written a completely different instigating factor that would have had the same narrative effect.

@@ACriticalDragon Interesting, in your chat with Raf, you brought up Peter Brett. You mentioned here how Erikson treats Stonny with care and empathy. I remember reading Brett's first book, and there was a rape that occurred, and five pages later the victim had basically moved on. At that point I realised the author doesn't know shit about humanity, and there is no value in reading his books.

Hi Mike, there are other aspects to that story and his writing that I found very intriguing. I don't think that his examination of the human condition is as poignant or as perceptive as Erikson's, but he does have demons coalescing out of mist every night and wreaking havoc... Would I put it up there as an all time favourite? Probably not. But there were some ideas in there that I enjoyed. So while I completely take your point and respect your opinion and decision, I wouldn't say there was no merit to his work.

@@ACriticalDragon I’ve thought some more about this, and just read the book for the first time in some years. It got me thinking about why tropes exist. They’re there for a reason. They resonate. At some level they’re archetypal. So in that sense there is a biological, or psychological, or cultural underpinning. Just because Hollywood shoehorns archetypes in with no subtlety, and presumption about the underlying knowledge, are they necessarily to be avoided? Are tropes only useful when broken? I’d argue that the intentional build up for both characters towards that point, from the introduction of Stonny needing to be rescued from an impending fight, to the sirenlike wail of Gruntle’s conscience as he unerringly approaches the gate and sees the fighting unfold, and the humanity with which it is dealt, is a conscious appreciation of that trope, a veritable expression of the underpinning human instincts on display. If he’d sprung for shock value because the degree of shock required to make Gruntle’s shift believable because it didn’t resonate, or, gods forbid, he’d shown the scene, to elicit a reader emotion not earned by the characters themselves, I’d probably feel the same as you. Tropes can be fresh, therefore, by that conscious, moral engagement by the writer, not just by upending or breaking or satirising, which is what we usually celebrate as modern readers. I’d further argue that, there being an underlying instinctual, human purpose in tropes, they teach us, and their expression can only be shifted so far before their meaning is lost. For example, it is the responsibility (privilege?) of the strong to protect the weak-despite what our current political climate that means men often protect women. We also learn of injustice, and it ignites rage and often a sense of futility. Some of us also know what its like to regret our inaction, see the consequences unfold, and have that regret boil up as anger as our instinct to lash out takes hold. Sure, Erikson might have written it differently, but I ithink it would have lacked something, a richness, a truth to these characters. What would Stonny otherwise be? Would her character have any depth to it? Would the lesson be that women can put themselves in danger, skate through life without consequences? Our culture has enough of that false narrative. In keeping with the novel’s theme, the lesson would also be that Gruntle can ignore his inner feminine side, and there be no consequences. Similarly, would we sacrifice Whiskeyjack’s arc because of the tropes of the wounded thigh and the love that cannot be? Human experience does repeat, and refreshing tropes and archetypes has a value. Must we read Arthurian romance to experience connection with the inner feminine? I’d even go as far as to say that conscious engagement with tropes and archetypes is even more important in a culture that is stripped of meaning. Back then, I read that scene with pain at the injustice. Now I feel Gruntle’s pain and the regret of not having done more.

I addressed this fridgeing concept on the podcast in the episode that will come out on Wednesday but I'll just say I don't think it totally tracks, because I read Gruntle as having been being dishonest with himself earlier when he said he didn't want to get involved. After all, where did he meet with Stonny when he found out what happened to her? was he still drinking in the bar? was he looking to sign up to the ranks of the Tenescowri? No, he was on the streets of a city under assault, right on the front lines, already looking for her. I think that he was already looking for an excuse to get involved in the defense because of what happened to Harlo, and because of his sense of justice, and because Stonny was involved and he loves his friends.

Hi Christian, So if we look at this structurally: Gruntle goes looking for Stonny. I. E. Male character takes action in a siege to find female friend, not male character takes action to defend city. Male character finds female friend has been raped. Male character takes action to punish those responsible for female friend's rape. Ergo, male character is spurred into action by female friend potentially being in trouble, then takes action to average female friend's rape. Hence analogous to the cliché of Fridging. The fact that that Erikson writes well, and that Gruntle's reaction is natural, and that he finds additional reasons to join in the defence post incident is irrelevant to identifying the structural trope. Erikson writes the scene well and with his customary care and empathy, but that doesn't mean that it is not there. As I said, he does it well, it fits the narrative because we are seeing the scene from Gruntle's PoV, and he handles the scene with sensitivity and compassion. As you point out yourself, Gruntle only gets involved because of Stonny, hence his call to action is a female friend in peril... That is the essence of the trope.

If you want to think about it a different way then we can do the following : I am arguing that Gruntle's call to action, his narrative spur, is a female friend in peril. So if we remove Stonny's peril and rape, say by placing her safely in bed in the Inn, what motivates Gruntle to get involved? We now have to invent a whole new reason for him to leave the Inn. We have to invent a new reason for him to take the fight to the enemy. Ergo Stonny's peril and rape is the motivating factor for him to do this in the novel. If we remove that narrative element we need a new one to make him leave the bar and be on the street. For example, he could look out and see a wounded child staggering past and then dying. That could be used as a narrative spur... But Erikson didn't do that, he used a female friend in peril who is the raped, and who the male character then 'avenges'. So we end up with the same result.

@@ACriticalDragon does the trope usually involve the woman being actively involved in the taking of the vengeance (killing her attacker, participating in the militia, going into battle with the Grey Swords in Coral) or is the reason the trope is looked down upon that it reduces the woman in question to being a passive object to motivate the male protagonist? (pretend I never heard of fridgeing before my cohost brought it up on the podcast recording 8 days ago and I'm asking this question to make sure I didn't misunderstand what made the trope morally abhorrent or problematic)

@@darkportents9835 the trope became a cliché and 'bad' because it reduces the role of a female character to that solely of a narrative spur for the male character and his story. So the existence of the female character is reduced to a plot point for the sake of male character motivation. In this instance, Stonny kills her rapist, which demonstrates her agency and ability as a martial character, which is one of the reasons why this is not an egregious use of the trope. However, the narrative perspective is Gruntle's. The story is Gruntle's. The action follows Gruntle. Therefore the character of Stonny has been reduced to a plot point to provide a narrative spur/call to action for the male hero. Therefore Stonny has been 'fridged' so that Gruntle has a reason to act. Had Stonny been safe and sound and not in any trouble a new reason for Gruntle's actions would have to be found. Therefore, no matter her martial prowess, her killing of her attacker, or how well developed she is elsewhere and elsewhen in the novel, at this juncture she has been reduced to a narrative function, reduced to providing a reason and rationale, a motivation, for a male character. Her trauma, sensitively treated though it is, becomes the motivating factor for a male character to take action to avenge her, to act on her behalf. It is not used as a spur for her to take action, as a motivator for her story (there is a different trope there).

I will try harder next time.

I honestly don't remember that. If you have the quotation I can take a look at it.

@@ACriticalDragon I’ll dig it up. I remember that some of the other characters pressed her on it, even mentioning she must have had a reason for it

@@ACriticalDragon so, it was in the last chapter before the epilogue. Dujek, Korlat and Gruntle and Stonny were present. Dujek was asking Korlat if the broken leg was responsible for Whiskeyjack getting killed by Kallor, she replied that it happened after the mortal blow. Gruntle noticed her hesitate when she answered Dujek. Then Dujek asked her if she was sure. After that Stonny and Gruntle remark to each other basically that Korlat must have a reason for the deceit, seems like one of them was going to call her out on it but decided to remain silent.

If you check the playlist tab you should find the videos for each book.

Most cases of language usage evolution pass me by, but decimate and literally are two that... Nope... Can't let it go. 😂😂😂

We couldn't really avoid it... but yeah... not a commentary inspired by personal experience of giving birth.

@@ACriticalDragon no that's entirely fair, i was just giving ya a hard time :)

Not as hard a time as giving birth... So I have heard.

Hi Seth, I am so sorry to hear about your dog. I know that is a terrible feeling and one that is really heart breaking. I am so sorry.

@@ACriticalDragon Thanks AP. Thanks for listening.

Seth, I truly am sorry. Feel free to drop a comment anytime. I can't always promise to respond immediately, but I do read them.

@@ACriticalDragon I really appreciate that you do take the time out of your day to respond. Have a great day AP.

I will endeavour to sate the apparently voracious appetite for more discursive analysis... I am a big fan of that George Carlin routine. He was absolutely brilliant at times.

Malazan is a strange, wonderful, and complex world.

Thanks for watching. The disadvantage of Philip and I being in different parts of the world is the inconvenience of time zones. I think that because the perspective was with Gruntle, and he has a certain frame of mind and character, it was a natural portrayal of his response. It was quite verisimilitudinous and authentic... But authors ultimately choose the perspective, choose the action they show, and choose the order that information is released to the reader. So I thought it worth raising. But I still think that Erikson generally handles these storylines, characters, and the depiction of this type of violence and the ramifications of it, with extreme sensitivity and with a careful eye on ensuring that the victim is not treated as a plot device or plot motivator.

Just wanted to add: Sorry if my first sentence there came off a little rough, I meant it as a joke. I greatly enjoy both of your channels and the discussions you so graciously share

No worries at all. No need to apologise. I would love to be able to talk with Philip and others for hours about these books... I might need to sell a kidney to pay for the bandwidth though. 😊😊😊

Hi Nalini, thanks for watching and for the comment. I will limit my response to HoC or earlier in terms of spoilers below. Spoilers for House of Chains, Memories of Ice, Deadhouse Gates, and Gardens fo the Moon. I understand your point, but I would disagree. Death has consequences in the Malazan world. Different consequences to our world obviously (it is a fantasy world after all and not mimetic) but there are consequences. Compared to the number of characters that die, objectively very few are resurrected, reincarnated, or reborn. So I don't really agree with your initial premise. But taking a couple of examples from the earlier books, Paran dies very early on in GotM, and that is a shock to the reader as they are not expecting it. He then gets resurrected at huge cost as this ultimately leads to Felisin's death in HoC. He is also changed by the experience and suffers trauma. So the initial shock still works, there is a 'permanent' death associated with it, and there is a personal cost to Paran above and beyond the emotional cost of losing his sister. He suffers from PTSD, is completely changed by the experience, and is not the same person anymore. So his death is not cheap and has very severe consequences. Tattersail dies. She is never coming back. Part of her soul adds to a new character, Silverfox, but Tattersail herself is gone. Silverfox has some of her memories, but she is not Tattersail. Silverfox is entirely new and made up of multiple souls. So there is a real permanency and cost to her death. Duiker as an example, does not know that he will be resurrected. He dies. He does actually die. His soul is captured by the bottle unbeknownst to him. So for him, the despair, the resignation, the pain, and the fear, are all very, very real. When we then see him resurrected in MoI he is suffering PTSD from the death, from witnessing the deaths of all those other soldiers, remembering the pain of being crucified and dying, and suffering from survivor's guilt. So there is a cost and loss to his resurrection. He doesn't come out of this thinking life is full of roses. Plus, from a reading perspective, at the time of his death, we don't know for sure that he will be resurrected. We might hope that he is, but it is not clear. It is only confirmed later. So his death has a real impact at the time, and that is not undercut (at least in my opinion) because a mage interferes and stops him from passing through Hood's Gate. The death and sacrifice were real at the time. But even if that doesn't sway you because he eventually comes back, why does that detract from the poignancy of the deaths of thousands of soldiers around him? How does it detract from his arc of painful cynicism turning into a true believer of Coltaine, and the pain and loss of witnessing all those others die? The scene is not just about him, it is about all of them... and they don't come back... except as ghosts in HoC and even then we don't get to engage with them. Coltaine is 'reborn'. The old Coltaine died. He is not coming back. We have already seen this reincarnation in the Wickans in which they get some memories, some aspects of the old soul, but they become new people. So 'Coltaine' as we knew him is never coming back. He is gone for good. Coltaine Reborn will be a different person, almost as if he is Coltaine's son and heir, rather than Coltaine himself. Plus, Coltaine coming back doesn't change the poignancy of his death. Of what Squint went through. Of what those soldiers and we as readers witnessed from the battlements. Nor does it change his sacrifice and that of the whole Chain of Dogs. When characters end up in the realm of the dead, they are essentially ghosts. So seeing them again is not cheapening their deaths to me. It is a bitter sweet reminder of a version of the afterlife. But I think this is simply a difference of interpretation. I don't need characters to be permanently gone to understand their sacrifice and feel the emotional resonance. Particularly if those characters were unaware at the time that would or could be coming back in some form. We see resurrection, ghosts, reincarnation, re-embodiment of souls, all the time in Fantasy. It is not a strange or peculiarly Malazan thing. And given the numbers of characters who die and never come back in any form, it is clear that these are rare events, and one can never count on them. But, there is nothing I can really say that will change your interpretation because it is based on your expectations. But I am glad that you enjoy the books. Thanks for the interesting comment.

@@ACriticalDragon Thanks for your elaborate answer. I see your point as well and obviously many other readers do, too, otherwise Erikson and Esslemont would not have so many hardcore fans. But it somehow reminded me - of course chronologically that's nonsense, because Malazan is much older and of a much higher narrative quality - of Infinty War and Endgame. Reading also a lot of - what you would call - mimetic novels the - as I said before - emotional impact in such a story very often hits me much harder than in the Malazan world - although I must admit that Coltaine's death in DG was one of the most heart-rending reading moments I have had for a long time.

@@NaliniKluth Hi Nalini, Reading is such a deeply personal experience, so I completely respect your position and approach. There is no 'right way' to read or feel for the characters. Plus, this series is so full of different aspects that some are going to be more impactful than others. As long as you enjoy something of the books then hopefully that will be enough. It is surprising that you felt Coltaine's death given that we never get his POV and he is explicitly one of the characters who is destined to reincarnate.

We are actually the same person, an actor called Robert. He plays both of us in an elaborate con game. You wouldn't believe the complicated video editing that goes on to make this appear like amateur video editing. :)

Yeah, but don't we all curse elder gods? 🤣🤣

@@ACriticalDragon touché

I understand your point, but as the trope has become so overused that the form of spur to action be the sexual violation of a female friend that I thought it worth pointing out. The trope is the issue, not that it is deployed poorly. As the POV is from Gruntle's perspective it makes perfect sense that he would be spurred to motivation by this, I don't argue otherwise. But it still relegates Stonny in that moment to victim for male antagonist to avenge. So as a story structure/trope that particular motivation for a male character has become overused in Fantasy and in genre fiction. I think Erikson still depicts Stonny's response and character with sensitivity and nuance, and that arc is explored within the later books. I think that Gruntle acts in character and that reaction is depicted well and consistently. I don't disagree with your points, but my issue was with the trope, not how Erikson used it. But, this is one of the points of discussion and analysis for me. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and being able to see other sides to the argument and other ways to interpret the scenes is valuable to me. So I am very thankful that you posted, and I really appreciate it.

Yup. She betrayed the other Malazan mages.

Hi Stephen, I agree that Gruntle's reaction is understandable and realistic. But that doesn't change the fact that Erikson employed this trope. If the narrative perspective was not Gruntle's the scene could have been handled very differently. If Gruntle's reasons for joining the battle were the child and then we find out about Stonny later, that would have changed the dynamics of scene. But because the PoV was Gruntle's, and because he encounters Stonny then the child, we are left with the sequence and of events which correspond to the trope. So there are two different ways Erikson could have constructed the events that would still have resulted in Gruntle's joining the war, but avoided the trope.

@@ACriticalDragon yep AP that does make sence :) but I have noticed sometimes with Erickson he likes to hit the reader with 2 emotional punches sometimes in quick succession your like how sad was that and just get over reading through tears and then he will up the ante with something that hits you even harder emotionally like seeing a death through some else perspective that loved or respected that person and the sadness of the scene hits you even harder, we get to see how he reacts to what happened to Stonny but then we also get his even harder emotionally with the childs tunic scene.

@@Stelfc and Erikson could still have done that by reversing the order.

I agree. I thought that it was worth mentioning though.

At least it was an attempt to tell a different story instead of rehashing the same story over and over again. It mightn't have worked out, but I would prefer Hollywood to make more original films instead of constantly rebooting and retelling the same stories that were around in the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

It will still be here when you are done. No need to rush. Take your time and enjoy the story. It is a fantastic read.

The video will be here for when you are done. It is a great book, and I hope that you enjoy reading it.

Because people read it today... so noting that 'from a modern perspective' puts it into the context of a new reader. As this is something that new readers may encounter and think about I raised it as a reaction/issue that many new readers might have.

There is no problem with Gruntle responding to a friend getting raped, it is a psychologically real reaction, there is a structural narratological issue in using female sexual assault solely as a motivating factor for a male protagonist and relaying that aspect of the narrative solely from the male protagonist's point of view. This has become so commonplace that it has become a widely derided trope. Also, given Erikson's usual more nuanced depiction of this particular issue, and also the focus a number of reviewers and critics place on this one particular issue, I thought it worth discussing. So given that my focus is on narratological issues that is why I decided to talk about it. But in a video that is over 75 long, I didn't think that I dwelt on it over long. Sorry you didn't enjoy the video. I hope that some of the others are more to your liking.

@@ACriticalDragon i enjoyed the video but it’s frustrating wanting to hear about carpustan and coral or even Bauchlain and instead you spend so much time on a pointless topic. I didn’t even register with me. Stonny isn’t even portrait as a victim because she takes care of things herself. And honestly that’s how men act. He clearly likes her and wants to be more, and men are possessive. We respond to an attack on “the women”. Is it pretty or “nice”? No. But neither men or women are perfect .

Hi Joao, Sorry about that. Then again, we all have different aspects of the book that interest us for various reasons, so it stands to reason that I am never going to cover everything that every viewer might potentially want me to cover, conversely, I am also going to cover things that some viewers don't want me to cover. Other readers of the series find this topic important and interesting, you don't . I try to talk about the things that I think are important, interesting, or enjoy. So if I hadn't discussed it other people may have had the reaction you just had which was 'why didn't you talk about the thing I wanted you to talk about instead of this thing that I don't care about'. As I said in my earlier reply, it is not about the the psychological realism of the reaction, it is about the narratological use of the incident. From a structural point of view it is of interest to me, and most definitely wasn't pointless. Referring to it as pointless is a little insulting and ignores what I was actually discussing. Plus, that is twice now you have implied that I spent a lot of time on it. I honestly didn't. Especially as you and some other commenters have completely missed the point about the structural use of the trope being different to the inclusion of the subject matter. Clearly I should have spent more time on it to make the point very clear and more easily understood. So to repeat what I said in my first response, the inclusion of Gruntle's reaction is not a problem, HOW it is included is the the issue I wanted to highlight. Most of videos I make are trying to highlight this awareness of the 'how' and 'why' things are in a text instead of the superficial understanding of the events. Ruthan Badd has a great video on the Quick Ben and Bauchelain scene. You might enjoy that.

Luckily Kallor, Tayschrenn, and Silverfox all continue to appear in the Malazan books, especially Esslemont's, so their story arcs are really just beginning. 😊

Plus: talk about reaping what you sow. In my book, there are no heroes here, It s a whole people taking the concept of hatred and vengeance to the n degree, to the point of sacrificing their whole beings, their whole existence to exact vengeance. Is this the people that should be redeemed? I dont buy It. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? Am I supposed to hate Silverfox for denying them? No. I dont care for this easy way out.

Plus: he didnt have a choice???? What the f....!!!!!! No times 10 thousand! If you use this argument the whole Idea of atonement is immediately off the window: a sacrifice without free will is devoid of meaning. And, If you say he had a choice, only the choice was too clear because he could not deny himself his purpose then you re saying that he consciously chose to sacrifice not only himself but also all the people who died because of his choice. Innocent people died because of his choice. This is a fallacy.