- Fighting words as intro ✅ check - Prologue obsession ✅ check - Inappropriate pleasures ✅ check - squabbles over intellectual copyright ✅ check Must be another Malazan discussion! Great to see both of you in great form!
Philip's talk about the soldier's loyalty to Tavore, which is not a blind loyalty, but is earned, that she has earned the loyalty and the devotion, makes me think of my (and probably many other people's) loyalty to Erikson and these books, and how often I have to tell people that it isn't gratuitous, or fanatical in nature, that it has been earned the hard way and that he is very much deserving of my trust and the trust of his readers. I know that Steve probably didn't think of it this way, and maybe Philip didn't mean it that way either, but it did resonate this way for me.
I must admit that I missed that detail and was totally confused later on. :D I think that I assumed that it was Icarium following the Group of Last, Sheb, Taxillian, etc. but I can't remember my reasoning when I read the Prologue.
Hang on a sec, I seem to recall a number of videos on your channel that have long discussions about single chapters of the books. 😉😉😉 It is always a pleasure to hear from you, Iskar.
This was fabulous. I really liked this book. Never expected a K'CHain Chemalle POV, and they were fascinating. I feel like kicking myself that I didn't put the Deadhouse Gates connections together,DOH. This book was so rich in theme , utterly fascinating. Future video request....if I may......Icarium - would you consider doing a really deep dive into everything Icarium that we know of from the books. He is just such a fascinating character and having only read it once I struggled to put the pieces together. As always thanks so much for the content, this made my evening. Cheers. PS- Really glad you are feeling better
It is a big book! Loved hearing all the insights you two shared about Dust of Dreams! That was interesting what you said about morally grey characters and what readers may mean by that. Hard to know what specific readers mean by that, but some might find it easier to root for a character that's fun to read and overlook or minimize their horrible acts. In Malazan, I feel like we additionally find characters we're not rooting for and find the urge to minimize how they are right or moral in some ways. I'm guilty of all the above. Hooray for cognitive dissonance!
Cognitive dissonance is one of the prevailing qualities of the human condition, why, I can have as many as six mutually exclusive thoughts by breakfast... To paraphrase Alice. 😂😂😂
Im finding this reading Broken Empire. The Internet made me think I would not like Jorg whatsoever and I was really unsure if I could enjoy it but I was still curious. I jumped in while waiting for a friend to finish Tawny Man thinking I would read one then start Rainwilds. Friend is now ahead, as I soon felt i needed to finish Broken Empire. It grew on me very slowly. I was surprised to be fair how much I was enjoying it. Imagine the contrast going from last chapter of Fools Fate straight into Prince of Thorns
@@ACriticalDragon I'm sure the series overview videos could number in the tens, which all of us would no doubt appreciate. Maybe that could be saved for Philip's 50th birthday livestream. 🤔😁
I finished Malazan about two months ago. I can't stop thinking about the ending. Dust of Dreams was a tough read for me, but a great lead up to The Crippled God. Great discussion as always guys. Definitely helped me understand DoD a lot better.
Just finished Dust of Dreams today, and I have to say I never made the connection of Held as a form of “hold” - I was distracted by “Held” being the German word for “hero”! I’m going to have to think about that more heading in to The Crippled God, and when I eventually start my reread…
It's so great to see you well AP and equally great to see a classic Malazan duo back together! I finished the 'big 10' earlier this year, and just started a re-read this week. I have been a long term watcher but first time commenter and I just wanted to say how much both of your discussions, insight, humour and genuineness and humanity in discussing both this amazing fictional world, and what it means to our real world too, has augmented my enjoyment of the series immeasurably. I'm sure it will only shed deeper and more vivid light on the books as I re-read them too. Overall you both seem like bloody nice blokes too and it's a pleasure to share a virtual beer and listen into your conversations. Looking forward to the second (and maybe third...!?) Dust of Dreams spoiler chat, and beyond!
Thank you very much, Matt. That is very kind of you to say. I am really glad that we can add to your enjoyment of the series. I hope that you have a great time on your reread of the series. But don't be fooled by my nefarious nemesis... He is nefarious.
Always love to watch your in-depth discussion! Also, it's great to see you feeling good again, AP. The connection between the Snake and the Chain of Dogs is really interesting. Alongside the Shake ('s return to Kharkanas) it's a human manifestation of the River metaphor, Imo. (Had to mention "OF A RIVER", the epigraph of book 2 - maybe another poem analysis?..) This theme is hinted at in the prologue, as AP pointed out, but also throughout the entire series. It also encompasses the clash between the past and present, as in the distinction between the Bridgeburners (which are their own past, and Whisky-jack denial of the access from the flowing time back to the frozen time), and the Bonehunters (which retraced the river that was the Chain of Dogs, and are penetrated the past to emerge from the bones). In that regard, I would also like to hear your analysis of the Shake storyline.
The Snake gets a lot more development in the The Crippled God and I didn't want to talk about it too much here (as we are still trying to do the no spoilers from later books thing even at this late stage). But that theme of the relationship between past and present is so important to the series as a whole, as you point out. Thanks for watching.
I have been listening to this video while doing chores around the house and I wanted to comment on something you discussed. Now that I am finally at a keyboard, it's out of my mind 😅😆. Either way, glad to see you discuss Malazan again. I was really looking forward on your DoD chats. I absolutely adored the book, it blew my mind so many times!
@@ACriticalDragon why do you assume it was a mistake? I think it was something about my experience reading about a specific part. My first thought was to tell you that you deserve a spanking for thinking that, but I felt that sounded really wrong 😆
So glad to be watching this video. I was keeping up with the two of you for a while but I finished Dust of Dreams and the Crippled God at the start of the year and I was waiting for your discussion on the finale ever since. I hope you're feeling better A.P. and I hope I have the time to finish the novels of the Malazan Empire before you post your Assail video. Cheers
I am feeling a lot better, thank you. It is very kind of you. I am sorry that I delayed things. But hopefully you will still get some enjoyment out of these discussions.
Regarding the dietary habits of the Snake, it becomes a physical manifestation of the Ouroboros. The the are also multiple examples of the cycle of death and rebirth. I was also thinking of the similarities between the K'Chain Ch'Malle and the T'Lan Imass and how they want to change after centuries of war. So what deity are they the Destriant and co. for? The ghost Icarium story line was/is one of the more confusing plot lines, up there with the exploding moon and space giants. And again, a discussion about doing the right thing vs. the pragmatic thing. I can also imagine a conversation with an editor or advanced reader of an earlier book. 'What's up with this bit here that doesn't seem to fit?' 'That will be important 6 books or 8 years from now. Is that a problem?' Bit on a side note, think of all the free time you will have because Crippled God has no prologue?
Ohh, Philip "Nemesis" Chase is the coolest name! :) I wished this discussion would not end, and luckily there's another hour of it :) There is so much detail that I've missed in DoD, I'm very happy to watch you two discuss and unveil so many things. The Snake was so confusing to me when I started reading the book, and very painful to read, because of the suffering of those kids. The K'chain on the other hand were fascinating. Of course, the aftermath of Rake's death and all the ways he is remembered have a very special value for me. Seeing his name kept on bringing back tears. I could go on and on, but I will just say this: Gods, I cannot wait for the Kharkanas books discussions
"i'm just gonna paste my face over yours" did you guys hear him threaten A.P.??? he said he's gonna USE AP's FACE to wear as a MASK!!!!!! idk about you guys but that's what i heard
The analysis about Blisting was brilliant. Didn't like him, but I never considered the fact that he is true to his character and his past changes a hole lot for me. Thank you both for this amazing video.
Blistig is really unlikeable, but readily understandable. A big point of the series is that almost all the characters are broken in some way. So the themes of empathy and compassion are extended to the reader to ask us to understand the situation of the characters and then decide if we can forgive them.
@@ACriticalDragon I found it so relatable that Blistig was hanging out with the Soldiers and wanted to "one of the lads". [As told from Kenebs perspective.]
Oh, this is such a long video, and ten minutes in I already have a bunch of things to say! :)) So I will probably say them one by one as they come. I have been trying to name one of the things I like the most about Erikson's writing for years, and you did it in a few short words: the shift in perspective. Thank you for that! And I will very much steal it whenever I have to use it :P As for Erikson succeeding in making us wonder how would we react in the same situations, it doesn't work for everyone, unfortunately. But it does succeed with most, and that's saying a lot. And then there's Badalle and her endless poems. I struggled so much to disect the poems, trying to make sense of them. I eventually had to give up. Maybe it will make more sense a second time around. But I did get the most important bit of it, even as I was struggling to understand the poems: Erikson is showing us a new magical aspect and a new type of magic, one that finds its power in words. And I found it very fitting, since the magic of his power lies in words too. It's the magic of literature for us, but so much more in the Malazan universe. And it was such a satisfaction to see it confirmed eventually! Then there's the metaphore of Held, like Philip was pointing out. From her name, and the way that Rutt was holding her, it was clear that he was holding the entire Snake. As for the Snake, there is something in the way that it was written that was very confusing to me. At times it was clear it was a migration of children. But other times I wasn't so sure. I thought it might be some magical entity, or that maybe this is happening in somebody's head and that it isn't really real. And the story of the ghosts in the K'Chain city didn't help much with this persception either. However, it hit hard when its story came to a conclusion. And since I only read the book once, I remember the emotion of that first reading better than the other books.
Imagine if SE did a short story collection based on alternative perspectives of certain characters during events we have already experienced through the eyes of another. Imagine the K'Chain Che'Malle during the Redmask narrative as a POV from what we now know from DoD? So many possibilities!
And those possible stories are the ones that we spin in our heads. As cool as it would be to have so many details explained and nailed down, I would miss the ambiguity and room for interpretation.
I like the comparison with the Chain of Dogs. And the Rutt for being stuck in a rutt. And the past form of Held's name. And yes, it was clear that it was Icarium. It took me a while to figure out it was happening in his mind, because the other characters look like they are interacting in a physical space until you figure it out properly. But I agree, it was clear from the prologue that this was Icarium. And I love the way you explained the Deck of Dragons. And the way Philip described the situation of Fist Blistig. Speaking of leadership, I always associated the way that Steve worked Coltaine with the way he worked Anomander Rake: remote, unknowable, carrying the weight of desperation of his people silently, motivating them to keep going, never getting his point of view. And some of these things are similar in the way that Tavore is written. It would be nice to have you three do a video of a comparison between these three, from the point of view of how they were written and from the point of view of their roles in the story.
One of the things that made me question if the "ghost" was Icarium in the Prologue of Dust of Dreams was the mention of him being known by seven names. I believe that came up earlier in the series as well, and that for whatever reason triggered me to think it was Icarium while we were going along! However, I had no idea what was going on for the rest of it until the very end 🤣 Thank you both for this video
Loved your comment about people being contradictory, but that they are cnosistent in their contradictions. And did I hear you criticise the concept of the right war? I can't wait for the Hetan discussion. This was great. You guys are my focusing mantra when I work. It's always nice to work while listening to you two talk. Somehow it sharpens both my ability to follow you and my ability to concentrate on my work. Oh, and you can stop saying that you torture your Nemesis. I doubt anyone believes it anymore :))) (that's just humour, I love these interactions between you two).
The Just War tradition is problematic to say the least, much like the concept of Justice. There has been a tendency for any side of a war to define their own position as 'Just' and the other side as 'Unjust'. Atrocities of all kinds have been perpetuated under the guise of 'Just' because the side conducting it has argued/rationalised/framed their actions in the best possible light and created criteria that 'show' that their actions are in the right. Of course the other side in that engagement will say that the war/conflict/police action is unjust, and they will have their reasons for that, and their criteria. That is not to say that there are never reasons for armed conflict, but the framing of it as 'just' is problematic. The modern day international law based approaches of the doctrine rather than the tradition are slightly more robust, but they still fall foul of the perspective issue. We justify and rationalise all sorts of actions that to other people would seem cruel or wrong, but to our mind they are righteous because our criteria and justification of them override the other side's objections. So the moral superiority granted by claiming a war is just is a dangerous thing, and historically has been used and abused to claim moral right to commit all sorts of horrendous behaviour.
@@ACriticalDragon Oh, I agree with you 100%, without ifs. And I would ask another question, one that you don't have to answer, given its sensitive nature and the public forum. Would the same concept apply to moral, cultural "wars" and conflicts, or do you think it should be limited to armed conflicts alone? Is a just cause ever worth committing abuse and restricting rights in order to uphold righteousness? I know where I stand on this one and my answer is clearly "no, never". Yet I know that this isn't the opinion that is public fashion these days.
I dislike the term 'culture war' precisely because it creates a false equivalency with actual war. But, if we take the suffrage movement, in particular the suffragettes, those women campaigned loudly for the right to vote. They were involved in civil disobedience, violent altercations with the police, property damage, and more, to call attention to and fight for a woman's right to vote and be counted on as a full citizen. Without them, without their fighting a culture war to be recognised, women's rights would likely still be rooted somewhere in the 19th Century. Yet their fight for recognition and equal rights was treated as a disenfranchisement of the male population by many people because it diluted the power and authority that men held in the society by including other voices. They had other women campaigning against them. They were viewed as disruptive hooligans, 'unladylike', uncivil, impolite, unnecessarily violent. Were those women right to fight tooth and nail for recognition by society? To have their status as equal humans recognised by society? To demand for the same respect that men had? Or do you think they should have meekly stood by and asked politely now and again could they please have the right to vote? Perhaps a strongly worded letter to parliament? That paradigm applies to many different minority groups of various kinds, so, as the doctrine of the just war suggests, proportionality is a key aspect. It is not an easy cut and dried area of discussion with a simple equation of years of persecution multiplied by extent of suffering plus measure of change necessary equals just result. It is complicated, messy, and nuanced. Whenever a minority group is recognised and included, the majority group (however it is formulated) frequently views it as a dilution or reduction in their power, this then is routinely then weaponised as it is framed as an attack on their beliefs and rights, when the vast majority of the time it is simply asking for an historical wrong to be corrected, and the group to be fully recognised.
@@ACriticalDragon Indeed, it is a very nuanced discussion. And the difficulty lies in both sides being right about certain aspects. Neither side can be dismissed, while none can be wholly accepted. So yes, talking about it in general is impossible. However, some things can be seen as an infringement of rights, no matter the lens you use to look at things. And the infringement of certain rights is dangerous. Like the infringement of free speech that I have seen growing for the past decade. The mere coining of the term "hateful speech" sets a dangerous precedent. After all, it isn't the pretty, righteous speech that needs protecting. It is the ugly, the mean, the hurtful, the dissenting, the uncomfortable kind of speech that is the reason for this human right after all. And I truly believe that people have a right to their feelings, be they beautiful ones or ugly ones, hate included. And that they have the right to express it if they so choose. It would be nice if people didn't feel this way, but to imagine a world where nobody hates anybody is utopian and non realistic. Besides, righteousness has seen a lot more blood flow than evil ever has. And the zealotry of the main cultural current - or at least as much as it is visible in the online environment, which doesn't necessarily has to mean it reflects reality - is deeply worrying for me. I find myself thinking more and more that in the conflict that is being birthed, the true victims will be hard won human rights, and in the aftermath of what is going on, we will have lost more than we can afford to. As I have no doubt left that this current will end up in spilled blood, just like its more recent cousin has spilled the blood of millions in the attempt of providing justice to the oppressed. We know that as communism today. I hope I am wrong, but I am pretty certain I am not. As I am sure that restricting and redefining a human right is not the same as the battle for women's rights (and it seems to me that women's rights were the first to take a blow in this conflict; I still hope that they will place a better law in the place of Roe versus Wade and that this is the reason why they took it down, but I won't hold my breath for it).
And yet there has never been a completely unregulated form of freedom of speech. We have defamation laws, we have libel laws, we have laws dealing with incitement to violence, we have regulated various forms of artistic expression, we have issues of censorship, we have laws that regulate pornography, we have laws and regulations about suitable audiences and age groups for certain types of speech, we have laws that deal with all aspects of 'speech' that regulate it, and some of these are good and some are bad, some don't go far enough and some are overreaching, some penalise minority groups, some protect minority groups. Censorship is a problem, but again, it is not simple, it is not easy, and it is not a new thing. It is an evolving and constantly negotiated tension between individual rights and the rights of society. It is not fixed, nor should it be fixed. it requires constant examination and refinement. Not all breeches of 'free speech' are equivalent. It is complex. And righteousness is weaponised on both sides of any debate in these arenas. Just as justice is.
I think part of why the parallel between Tavore and Coltaine doesn't land for the characters in the world is that Coltaine was a proven commander who came with Bult to support him. Tavore is a noble girl no one knows, and who was promoted for reasons that seem political and nefarious. Her greatest moments of competence are shown to the reader in scenes such as her meeting with Laseen and following conversation with Kalam, but her army saw none of that. Her achievements as a commander don't read as brilliant because so many of them are barely turned disasters, in contrast to Coltaine who is dominant again and again because his plans keep working. It also helps that his soldiers knew their goal. Her nature is also frustrating as a reader because her silence rarely seems to have value even in retrospect. It improves the writing, because who wants the whole story exposed before we get there, but by god I understand the desire to shake the woman.
The parallel between Tavore and Coltaine is more for readers than characters. I wouldn't expect the characters to make that comparison. What is interesting is how when the characters in the Chain of Dogs doubted Coltaine readers react one way, but when characters doubt Tavore for the same leadership style, readers react a different way. Coltaine was not 'respected' by a number of soldiers under his command as Fist and we see this explicitly in Duiker's perspective and from the nobles' perspectives because he is an outsider, a Barbarian, was a political appointment, and he never explains. Tavore, as you rightly point out, is also distrusted, but in her case it is because she is a noble and comes from a political background. But they are fascinating parallels.
@@ACriticalDragon it is an interesting consideration. The idea of our faith in the two commanders coming in such different ways. The chain of dogs never really seems doomed to failure. It is set as a tragedy, but the I don't think the reader really ever thinks "oh, well they'll lose the next one and that'll be that." Coltaine is silent but has Bult to be his voice to the reader and world. Tavore is much more complicated, with our understanding of her coming in things like Ganoes reflections. In a world of gods who pervert followers, or those that are twisted into something new by the power of their worship, Tavore invites faith in an uncorruptable figure but offers no promises that any of this story ends in anything other than a list of the fallen.
Im going to have to disagree with AP on some level about Tavore (dangerous, I know). Tavore keeps winning and turning symbols, yes, but the Bonehunters have been continually denied catharsis. The end of House of Chains was an anti-climax, no one really felt pumped after Malaz City, and the invasion of Lether was more about Lether’s dysfunction than Malazan competence. The Chain of Dogs had multiple explosive victories for all to see that built Coltaine’s reputation. I dont think this says much about Coltaine vs Tavore’s efficacy as leaders, but is far easier for someone on the outside to assign Tavore’s wins to luck. I love Tavore as a character, but if I am being honest i would never want to work for her. Especially given how things progress in Book 10, i cant blame Blistig at all for his doubts. Tavore’s leadership style has real downsides, it is only the work of so many others (Keneb, Fiddler, Bottle, etc…) that the army is held together.
I completely understand that position, but they still win. They beat the Whirlwind, they destroy Y'Ghatan, they defeat the Edur navy, they win at Malaz city, and they conquered Lether... they keep winning, but not necessarily in the way the soldiers 'want', but to this point they have more wins and fewer losses than Coltaine. No matter what has been thrown at them, they have survived, triumphed, and moved on. Beak's sacrifice on Lether was a momentous occasion, mystical and breath taking, but again the soldiers were denied a big pitched battle. But the fact remains, Tavore keeps winning, and some of the soldiers begin to trust her, but others don't. We tend to valorise Coltaine's victories in retrospect, but the Chain of Dogs was a brutal march of attrition. Both Tavore and Coltaine are remarkably similar in terms of leadership style. They are both reserved. They both hold things close to their respective chests. They both trust to their commanders to do the job and enact orders. They are both unknowable to the common soldier. But Coltaine had a mystique about him. he was a warrior chieftain, he had a history fighting the Malazans, so already had a reputation. Tavore, on the other hand, is a noble (whom the Malazans culturally distrust), was Adjunct to Laseen (so a political appointment, not military), and doesn't come from a 'military' background. So there are big distinctions there. But in terms of leadership style, they are remarkably similar. Tavore's leadership style is the same as Coltaine's. Their circumstances are different, but the styles are the same.
@@ACriticalDragon i definitely agree they have very similar styles. Another thing to consider is the timeline. The Chain of Dogs took places over a couple of months and had a clear goal from the jump, as well as being relentless. The journey of the Bonehunters takes place over years, which gives much more downtime between. Bored armies and all that. What Tavore is trying to accomplish is also far more vague and abstract, which is going to lose some people along the way, both in story and with readers.
If someone were so inclined, they could make a Tavore: Winning Ugly video. I'm still on RG, so don't know the ultimate resolution to her army's tale, but it almost seems like she's got a god on her shoulder. I don't mean that in a "My girlfriend was possessed by a god" way. I almost get a sense that her actions are being orchestrated by an outside force, maybe an ally. Guess I'll RAFO. I do question her decision to burn the transports the marines landed on. That's like the landing force on D-Day being told that the generals don't trust you to go into the meatgrinder, so we'll scuttle all the transports. What makes even less sense is that after advertising the marines' presence to the entire coast watch, they move inland under stealth and use commando tactics. How much further could the squads have travelled; how much more effective, if they hadn't given the game away. Maybe Tavore should have gotten her tardy ass to Letheras earlier and Beak didn't have to die. (Sniff)
I just finished this book and never thought it was boring at all. Sure the soldiers "constant" crying could be seen as annoying but I thought it was a completely justified style of writing. They are trudging through wastelands for months after all. The snake was so gut wrenching and depressing to read I could never call it boring or pointless, especially since it obviously set up very big things.
I found the book a bit boring until the final lead up to the battle when it focused on the Malazan soldiers. I don’t see the point of the hobbling story arc. Just a cruel sideshow to torture Tool, and by association continue to torture the most hard done by character in the series Toc the Younger.
We’re back! Back in the Malaz Groove!
Or Rutt...
@@ACriticalDragon 🤣🤣🤣 Well, we shouldn’t be Held responsible.
If you are going to Snake in a BAD-alle pun, you might want to Shake up your repertoire.
I'm just happy you two Claw-ed your way back onto the Malazan wagon.
Assailing our senses of humour with the puns again? For shurq this will go badly...
- Fighting words as intro ✅ check
- Prologue obsession ✅ check
- Inappropriate pleasures ✅ check
- squabbles over intellectual copyright ✅ check
Must be another Malazan discussion!
Great to see both of you in great form!
Glad that you enjoyed it. 😁
Philip's talk about the soldier's loyalty to Tavore, which is not a blind loyalty, but is earned, that she has earned the loyalty and the devotion, makes me think of my (and probably many other people's) loyalty to Erikson and these books, and how often I have to tell people that it isn't gratuitous, or fanatical in nature, that it has been earned the hard way and that he is very much deserving of my trust and the trust of his readers. I know that Steve probably didn't think of it this way, and maybe Philip didn't mean it that way either, but it did resonate this way for me.
The mention of a man walking across the desert butt naked carrying single-edged sword told me it was Icarium. That was in the prologue.
I must admit that I missed that detail and was totally confused later on. :D I think that I assumed that it was Icarium following the Group of Last, Sheb, Taxillian, etc. but I can't remember my reasoning when I read the Prologue.
I've been looking forward to this
I hope that it lived up to the expectation, or at least met it halfway.
Only AP can get away with 10 minute Duiker-Gu’Rull comparisons! Love the video boys!
Hang on a sec, I seem to recall a number of videos on your channel that have long discussions about single chapters of the books. 😉😉😉
It is always a pleasure to hear from you, Iskar.
@@ACriticalDragon haha I’m just joshin! I love the idea of Gu’Rull as disenchanted historian!
This was fabulous. I really liked this book. Never expected a K'CHain Chemalle POV, and they were fascinating. I feel like kicking myself that I didn't put the Deadhouse Gates connections together,DOH. This book was so rich in theme , utterly fascinating. Future video request....if I may......Icarium - would you consider doing a really deep dive into everything Icarium that we know of from the books. He is just such a fascinating character and having only read it once I struggled to put the pieces together. As always thanks so much for the content, this made my evening. Cheers. PS- Really glad you are feeling better
I might have to bring in some big guns to tackle Icarium. He is a tough nut to crack.
A Critical Dragon Tough nut to crack, tell that to Mappo!
It is a big book! Loved hearing all the insights you two shared about Dust of Dreams! That was interesting what you said about morally grey characters and what readers may mean by that. Hard to know what specific readers mean by that, but some might find it easier to root for a character that's fun to read and overlook or minimize their horrible acts. In Malazan, I feel like we additionally find characters we're not rooting for and find the urge to minimize how they are right or moral in some ways. I'm guilty of all the above. Hooray for cognitive dissonance!
Cognitive dissonance is one of the prevailing qualities of the human condition, why, I can have as many as six mutually exclusive thoughts by breakfast... To paraphrase Alice. 😂😂😂
Im finding this reading Broken Empire. The Internet made me think I would not like Jorg whatsoever and I was really unsure if I could enjoy it but I was still curious. I jumped in while waiting for a friend to finish Tawny Man thinking I would read one then start Rainwilds. Friend is now ahead, as I soon felt i needed to finish Broken Empire. It grew on me very slowly. I was surprised to be fair how much I was enjoying it. Imagine the contrast going from last chapter of Fools Fate straight into Prince of Thorns
Another great analysis gentlemen, good to have you taking your time on some of these meatier books. Looking forward to the next one. 👍
Even after two discussions there is still a lot of meat on those bones.
@@ACriticalDragon I'm sure the series overview videos could number in the tens, which all of us would no doubt appreciate. Maybe that could be saved for Philip's 50th birthday livestream. 🤔😁
Excellent! Great way to start the morning.
I am glad that you enjoyed it, Richard.
Although I do worry that a depressing take on humanity's inherent corruption is apparently a great way to start the morning.
@@ACriticalDragon A massive dose of existential despair is the only way to start a Monday.
Perfect roundup after I finished Dust of Dreams yesterday. =)
It is always a relief to hear that people enjoy the discussion. Thanks for watching and letting me know.
I finished Malazan about two months ago. I can't stop thinking about the ending. Dust of Dreams was a tough read for me, but a great lead up to The Crippled God. Great discussion as always guys. Definitely helped me understand DoD a lot better.
Just finished Dust of Dreams today, and I have to say I never made the connection of Held as a form of “hold” - I was distracted by “Held” being the German word for “hero”! I’m going to have to think about that more heading in to The Crippled God, and when I eventually start my reread…
It's so great to see you well AP and equally great to see a classic Malazan duo back together! I finished the 'big 10' earlier this year, and just started a re-read this week. I have been a long term watcher but first time commenter and I just wanted to say how much both of your discussions, insight, humour and genuineness and humanity in discussing both this amazing fictional world, and what it means to our real world too, has augmented my enjoyment of the series immeasurably. I'm sure it will only shed deeper and more vivid light on the books as I re-read them too. Overall you both seem like bloody nice blokes too and it's a pleasure to share a virtual beer and listen into your conversations. Looking forward to the second (and maybe third...!?) Dust of Dreams spoiler chat, and beyond!
Thank you very much, Matt. That is very kind of you to say.
I am really glad that we can add to your enjoyment of the series.
I hope that you have a great time on your reread of the series.
But don't be fooled by my nefarious nemesis... He is nefarious.
@@ACriticalDragon well as the classic saying goes - "come for the fireballs, stay for the nefariousness!"
And yet another poor, innocent soul has been taken in by the nefariosity of Dr. Fantasy... Woe.
great discussion!
i never picked up on the parallels between the chain of dogs and the snake but as soon as you said it, it made perfect sense
I am glad that made sense. Some times I worry if I am making any sense at all, or am I just in a world of my own.
Thanks for watching.
@@ACriticalDragon We're all in a world of our own... Once in awhile, there's a bridge to other worlds, but they eventually burn down...
Still watching, but 'keeping an eye out for the Errant' AP?! I think I'll be laughing about that all day
What? Do you think I would make that sort of pun on purpose? Nay. Of course not.
Always love to watch your in-depth discussion!
Also, it's great to see you feeling good again, AP.
The connection between the Snake and the Chain of Dogs is really interesting. Alongside the Shake ('s return to Kharkanas) it's a human manifestation of the River metaphor, Imo. (Had to mention "OF A RIVER", the epigraph of book 2 - maybe another poem analysis?..)
This theme is hinted at in the prologue, as AP pointed out, but also throughout the entire series.
It also encompasses the clash between the past and present, as in the distinction between the Bridgeburners (which are their own past, and Whisky-jack denial of the access from the flowing time back to the frozen time), and the Bonehunters (which retraced the river that was the Chain of Dogs, and are penetrated the past to emerge from the bones).
In that regard, I would also like to hear your analysis of the Shake storyline.
The Snake gets a lot more development in the The Crippled God and I didn't want to talk about it too much here (as we are still trying to do the no spoilers from later books thing even at this late stage).
But that theme of the relationship between past and present is so important to the series as a whole, as you point out.
Thanks for watching.
I have been listening to this video while doing chores around the house and I wanted to comment on something you discussed. Now that I am finally at a keyboard, it's out of my mind 😅😆.
Either way, glad to see you discuss Malazan again. I was really looking forward on your DoD chats. I absolutely adored the book, it blew my mind so many times!
I am sure that you will eventually remember the mistake that I made.
😂
Hopefully I will catch up with your reading soon.
@@ACriticalDragon why do you assume it was a mistake? I think it was something about my experience reading about a specific part. My first thought was to tell you that you deserve a spanking for thinking that, but I felt that sounded really wrong 😆
So glad to be watching this video. I was keeping up with the two of you for a while but I finished Dust of Dreams and the Crippled God at the start of the year and I was waiting for your discussion on the finale ever since. I hope you're feeling better A.P. and I hope I have the time to finish the novels of the Malazan Empire before you post your Assail video. Cheers
I am feeling a lot better, thank you. It is very kind of you. I am sorry that I delayed things. But hopefully you will still get some enjoyment out of these discussions.
Philip: Even a nemesis has some good qualities right?
AP: chuckles
He may be a nemesis, but he does ... have... some... good... qualities...
Yeesh, that was hard to admit.
@@ACriticalDragon I thought I heard the sound of teeth grinding... 🤣
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd that was Yedan Derryg.
@@ACriticalDragon 😜
Regarding the dietary habits of the Snake, it becomes a physical manifestation of the Ouroboros. The the are also multiple examples of the cycle of death and rebirth.
I was also thinking of the similarities between the K'Chain Ch'Malle and the T'Lan Imass and how they want to change after centuries of war.
So what deity are they the Destriant and co. for?
The ghost Icarium story line was/is one of the more confusing plot lines, up there with the exploding moon and space giants.
And again, a discussion about doing the right thing vs. the pragmatic thing.
I can also imagine a conversation with an editor or advanced reader of an earlier book. 'What's up with this bit here that doesn't seem to fit?' 'That will be important 6 books or 8 years from now. Is that a problem?'
Bit on a side note, think of all the free time you will have because Crippled God has no prologue?
A lot of this discussion gets moved to The Crippled God, but good points and questions.
I will miss the Prologue... But I will have an epilogue!!!!!
Ohh, Philip "Nemesis" Chase is the coolest name! :)
I wished this discussion would not end, and luckily there's another hour of it :) There is so much detail that I've missed in DoD, I'm very happy to watch you two discuss and unveil so many things. The Snake was so confusing to me when I started reading the book, and very painful to read, because of the suffering of those kids. The K'chain on the other hand were fascinating.
Of course, the aftermath of Rake's death and all the ways he is remembered have a very special value for me. Seeing his name kept on bringing back tears. I could go on and on, but I will just say this: Gods, I cannot wait for the Kharkanas books discussions
"i'm just gonna paste my face over yours"
did you guys hear him threaten A.P.??? he said he's gonna USE AP's FACE to wear as a MASK!!!!!!
idk about you guys but that's what i heard
His dastardly nefariosity knows no bounds.
The analysis about Blisting was brilliant. Didn't like him, but I never considered the fact that he is true to his character and his past changes a hole lot for me. Thank you both for this amazing video.
Blistig is really unlikeable, but readily understandable.
A big point of the series is that almost all the characters are broken in some way.
So the themes of empathy and compassion are extended to the reader to ask us to understand the situation of the characters and then decide if we can forgive them.
@@ACriticalDragon I found it so relatable that Blistig was hanging out with the Soldiers and wanted to "one of the lads". [As told from Kenebs perspective.]
Oh, this is such a long video, and ten minutes in I already have a bunch of things to say! :)) So I will probably say them one by one as they come. I have been trying to name one of the things I like the most about Erikson's writing for years, and you did it in a few short words: the shift in perspective. Thank you for that! And I will very much steal it whenever I have to use it :P As for Erikson succeeding in making us wonder how would we react in the same situations, it doesn't work for everyone, unfortunately. But it does succeed with most, and that's saying a lot.
And then there's Badalle and her endless poems. I struggled so much to disect the poems, trying to make sense of them. I eventually had to give up. Maybe it will make more sense a second time around. But I did get the most important bit of it, even as I was struggling to understand the poems: Erikson is showing us a new magical aspect and a new type of magic, one that finds its power in words. And I found it very fitting, since the magic of his power lies in words too. It's the magic of literature for us, but so much more in the Malazan universe. And it was such a satisfaction to see it confirmed eventually!
Then there's the metaphore of Held, like Philip was pointing out. From her name, and the way that Rutt was holding her, it was clear that he was holding the entire Snake. As for the Snake, there is something in the way that it was written that was very confusing to me. At times it was clear it was a migration of children. But other times I wasn't so sure. I thought it might be some magical entity, or that maybe this is happening in somebody's head and that it isn't really real. And the story of the ghosts in the K'Chain city didn't help much with this persception either. However, it hit hard when its story came to a conclusion. And since I only read the book once, I remember the emotion of that first reading better than the other books.
Imagine if SE did a short story collection based on alternative perspectives of certain characters during events we have already experienced through the eyes of another. Imagine the K'Chain Che'Malle during the Redmask narrative as a POV from what we now know from DoD? So many possibilities!
And those possible stories are the ones that we spin in our heads.
As cool as it would be to have so many details explained and nailed down, I would miss the ambiguity and room for interpretation.
@@ACriticalDragon I hear you AP. But dam I would take a POV short story about Roach from that man.
@@Vinnie2501 Hood yes.
I like the comparison with the Chain of Dogs. And the Rutt for being stuck in a rutt. And the past form of Held's name. And yes, it was clear that it was Icarium. It took me a while to figure out it was happening in his mind, because the other characters look like they are interacting in a physical space until you figure it out properly. But I agree, it was clear from the prologue that this was Icarium.
And I love the way you explained the Deck of Dragons. And the way Philip described the situation of Fist Blistig.
Speaking of leadership, I always associated the way that Steve worked Coltaine with the way he worked Anomander Rake: remote, unknowable, carrying the weight of desperation of his people silently, motivating them to keep going, never getting his point of view. And some of these things are similar in the way that Tavore is written. It would be nice to have you three do a video of a comparison between these three, from the point of view of how they were written and from the point of view of their roles in the story.
One of the things that made me question if the "ghost" was Icarium in the Prologue of Dust of Dreams was the mention of him being known by seven names. I believe that came up earlier in the series as well, and that for whatever reason triggered me to think it was Icarium while we were going along! However, I had no idea what was going on for the rest of it until the very end 🤣
Thank you both for this video
You are very welcome. I am glad that you enjoyed it.
Oh man this book has been... man... those last 200 pages... I'm speechless
Loved your comment about people being contradictory, but that they are cnosistent in their contradictions. And did I hear you criticise the concept of the right war?
I can't wait for the Hetan discussion. This was great. You guys are my focusing mantra when I work. It's always nice to work while listening to you two talk. Somehow it sharpens both my ability to follow you and my ability to concentrate on my work.
Oh, and you can stop saying that you torture your Nemesis. I doubt anyone believes it anymore :))) (that's just humour, I love these interactions between you two).
The Just War tradition is problematic to say the least, much like the concept of Justice. There has been a tendency for any side of a war to define their own position as 'Just' and the other side as 'Unjust'. Atrocities of all kinds have been perpetuated under the guise of 'Just' because the side conducting it has argued/rationalised/framed their actions in the best possible light and created criteria that 'show' that their actions are in the right. Of course the other side in that engagement will say that the war/conflict/police action is unjust, and they will have their reasons for that, and their criteria.
That is not to say that there are never reasons for armed conflict, but the framing of it as 'just' is problematic.
The modern day international law based approaches of the doctrine rather than the tradition are slightly more robust, but they still fall foul of the perspective issue. We justify and rationalise all sorts of actions that to other people would seem cruel or wrong, but to our mind they are righteous because our criteria and justification of them override the other side's objections. So the moral superiority granted by claiming a war is just is a dangerous thing, and historically has been used and abused to claim moral right to commit all sorts of horrendous behaviour.
@@ACriticalDragon Oh, I agree with you 100%, without ifs. And I would ask another question, one that you don't have to answer, given its sensitive nature and the public forum. Would the same concept apply to moral, cultural "wars" and conflicts, or do you think it should be limited to armed conflicts alone? Is a just cause ever worth committing abuse and restricting rights in order to uphold righteousness? I know where I stand on this one and my answer is clearly "no, never". Yet I know that this isn't the opinion that is public fashion these days.
I dislike the term 'culture war' precisely because it creates a false equivalency with actual war.
But, if we take the suffrage movement, in particular the suffragettes, those women campaigned loudly for the right to vote. They were involved in civil disobedience, violent altercations with the police, property damage, and more, to call attention to and fight for a woman's right to vote and be counted on as a full citizen. Without them, without their fighting a culture war to be recognised, women's rights would likely still be rooted somewhere in the 19th Century.
Yet their fight for recognition and equal rights was treated as a disenfranchisement of the male population by many people because it diluted the power and authority that men held in the society by including other voices. They had other women campaigning against them. They were viewed as disruptive hooligans, 'unladylike', uncivil, impolite, unnecessarily violent.
Were those women right to fight tooth and nail for recognition by society? To have their status as equal humans recognised by society? To demand for the same respect that men had?
Or do you think they should have meekly stood by and asked politely now and again could they please have the right to vote? Perhaps a strongly worded letter to parliament?
That paradigm applies to many different minority groups of various kinds, so, as the doctrine of the just war suggests, proportionality is a key aspect.
It is not an easy cut and dried area of discussion with a simple equation of years of persecution multiplied by extent of suffering plus measure of change necessary equals just result. It is complicated, messy, and nuanced.
Whenever a minority group is recognised and included, the majority group (however it is formulated) frequently views it as a dilution or reduction in their power, this then is routinely then weaponised as it is framed as an attack on their beliefs and rights, when the vast majority of the time it is simply asking for an historical wrong to be corrected, and the group to be fully recognised.
@@ACriticalDragon Indeed, it is a very nuanced discussion. And the difficulty lies in both sides being right about certain aspects. Neither side can be dismissed, while none can be wholly accepted. So yes, talking about it in general is impossible.
However, some things can be seen as an infringement of rights, no matter the lens you use to look at things. And the infringement of certain rights is dangerous. Like the infringement of free speech that I have seen growing for the past decade.
The mere coining of the term "hateful speech" sets a dangerous precedent. After all, it isn't the pretty, righteous speech that needs protecting. It is the ugly, the mean, the hurtful, the dissenting, the uncomfortable kind of speech that is the reason for this human right after all. And I truly believe that people have a right to their feelings, be they beautiful ones or ugly ones, hate included. And that they have the right to express it if they so choose. It would be nice if people didn't feel this way, but to imagine a world where nobody hates anybody is utopian and non realistic.
Besides, righteousness has seen a lot more blood flow than evil ever has. And the zealotry of the main cultural current - or at least as much as it is visible in the online environment, which doesn't necessarily has to mean it reflects reality - is deeply worrying for me. I find myself thinking more and more that in the conflict that is being birthed, the true victims will be hard won human rights, and in the aftermath of what is going on, we will have lost more than we can afford to. As I have no doubt left that this current will end up in spilled blood, just like its more recent cousin has spilled the blood of millions in the attempt of providing justice to the oppressed. We know that as communism today. I hope I am wrong, but I am pretty certain I am not. As I am sure that restricting and redefining a human right is not the same as the battle for women's rights (and it seems to me that women's rights were the first to take a blow in this conflict; I still hope that they will place a better law in the place of Roe versus Wade and that this is the reason why they took it down, but I won't hold my breath for it).
And yet there has never been a completely unregulated form of freedom of speech. We have defamation laws, we have libel laws, we have laws dealing with incitement to violence, we have regulated various forms of artistic expression, we have issues of censorship, we have laws that regulate pornography, we have laws and regulations about suitable audiences and age groups for certain types of speech, we have laws that deal with all aspects of 'speech' that regulate it, and some of these are good and some are bad, some don't go far enough and some are overreaching, some penalise minority groups, some protect minority groups.
Censorship is a problem, but again, it is not simple, it is not easy, and it is not a new thing. It is an evolving and constantly negotiated tension between individual rights and the rights of society. It is not fixed, nor should it be fixed. it requires constant examination and refinement.
Not all breeches of 'free speech' are equivalent.
It is complex.
And righteousness is weaponised on both sides of any debate in these arenas. Just as justice is.
I think part of why the parallel between Tavore and Coltaine doesn't land for the characters in the world is that Coltaine was a proven commander who came with Bult to support him. Tavore is a noble girl no one knows, and who was promoted for reasons that seem political and nefarious. Her greatest moments of competence are shown to the reader in scenes such as her meeting with Laseen and following conversation with Kalam, but her army saw none of that. Her achievements as a commander don't read as brilliant because so many of them are barely turned disasters, in contrast to Coltaine who is dominant again and again because his plans keep working. It also helps that his soldiers knew their goal. Her nature is also frustrating as a reader because her silence rarely seems to have value even in retrospect. It improves the writing, because who wants the whole story exposed before we get there, but by god I understand the desire to shake the woman.
The parallel between Tavore and Coltaine is more for readers than characters.
I wouldn't expect the characters to make that comparison.
What is interesting is how when the characters in the Chain of Dogs doubted Coltaine readers react one way, but when characters doubt Tavore for the same leadership style, readers react a different way.
Coltaine was not 'respected' by a number of soldiers under his command as Fist and we see this explicitly in Duiker's perspective and from the nobles' perspectives because he is an outsider, a Barbarian, was a political appointment, and he never explains.
Tavore, as you rightly point out, is also distrusted, but in her case it is because she is a noble and comes from a political background.
But they are fascinating parallels.
@@ACriticalDragon it is an interesting consideration. The idea of our faith in the two commanders coming in such different ways. The chain of dogs never really seems doomed to failure. It is set as a tragedy, but the I don't think the reader really ever thinks "oh, well they'll lose the next one and that'll be that." Coltaine is silent but has Bult to be his voice to the reader and world.
Tavore is much more complicated, with our understanding of her coming in things like Ganoes reflections. In a world of gods who pervert followers, or those that are twisted into something new by the power of their worship, Tavore invites faith in an uncorruptable figure but offers no promises that any of this story ends in anything other than a list of the fallen.
Im going to have to disagree with AP on some level about Tavore (dangerous, I know). Tavore keeps winning and turning symbols, yes, but the Bonehunters have been continually denied catharsis. The end of House of Chains was an anti-climax, no one really felt pumped after Malaz City, and the invasion of Lether was more about Lether’s dysfunction than Malazan competence. The Chain of Dogs had multiple explosive victories for all to see that built Coltaine’s reputation.
I dont think this says much about Coltaine vs Tavore’s efficacy as leaders, but is far easier for someone on the outside to assign Tavore’s wins to luck. I love Tavore as a character, but if I am being honest i would never want to work for her. Especially given how things progress in Book 10, i cant blame Blistig at all for his doubts. Tavore’s leadership style has real downsides, it is only the work of so many others (Keneb, Fiddler, Bottle, etc…) that the army is held together.
I completely understand that position, but they still win. They beat the Whirlwind, they destroy Y'Ghatan, they defeat the Edur navy, they win at Malaz city, and they conquered Lether... they keep winning, but not necessarily in the way the soldiers 'want', but to this point they have more wins and fewer losses than Coltaine. No matter what has been thrown at them, they have survived, triumphed, and moved on. Beak's sacrifice on Lether was a momentous occasion, mystical and breath taking, but again the soldiers were denied a big pitched battle. But the fact remains, Tavore keeps winning, and some of the soldiers begin to trust her, but others don't.
We tend to valorise Coltaine's victories in retrospect, but the Chain of Dogs was a brutal march of attrition.
Both Tavore and Coltaine are remarkably similar in terms of leadership style. They are both reserved. They both hold things close to their respective chests. They both trust to their commanders to do the job and enact orders. They are both unknowable to the common soldier.
But Coltaine had a mystique about him. he was a warrior chieftain, he had a history fighting the Malazans, so already had a reputation.
Tavore, on the other hand, is a noble (whom the Malazans culturally distrust), was Adjunct to Laseen (so a political appointment, not military), and doesn't come from a 'military' background.
So there are big distinctions there. But in terms of leadership style, they are remarkably similar. Tavore's leadership style is the same as Coltaine's. Their circumstances are different, but the styles are the same.
@@ACriticalDragon i definitely agree they have very similar styles. Another thing to consider is the timeline. The Chain of Dogs took places over a couple of months and had a clear goal from the jump, as well as being relentless. The journey of the Bonehunters takes place over years, which gives much more downtime between. Bored armies and all that. What Tavore is trying to accomplish is also far more vague and abstract, which is going to lose some people along the way, both in story and with readers.
If someone were so inclined, they could make a Tavore: Winning Ugly video. I'm still on RG, so don't know the ultimate resolution to her army's tale, but it almost seems like she's got a god on her shoulder. I don't mean that in a "My girlfriend was possessed by a god" way. I almost get a sense that her actions are being orchestrated by an outside force, maybe an ally. Guess I'll RAFO.
I do question her decision to burn the transports the marines landed on. That's like the landing force on D-Day being told that the generals don't trust you to go into the meatgrinder, so we'll scuttle all the transports. What makes even less sense is that after advertising the marines' presence to the entire coast watch, they move inland under stealth and use commando tactics. How much further could the squads have travelled; how much more effective, if they hadn't given the game away. Maybe Tavore should have gotten her tardy ass to Letheras earlier and Beak didn't have to die. (Sniff)
Would you both be doing such indepth analysis for other series once Malazan is completed? Say asoiaf, First Law or Storm light for eg?
The next series will be Janny Wurts Wars of Light and Shadows.
@@ACriticalDragon I'm missing out on these as I didn't go beyond a certain point with Malazan. Looks like I'll have to start reading Wurts now 😁
I just finished this book and never thought it was boring at all. Sure the soldiers "constant" crying could be seen as annoying but I thought it was a completely justified style of writing. They are trudging through wastelands for months after all. The snake was so gut wrenching and depressing to read I could never call it boring or pointless, especially since it obviously set up very big things.
🎉🎊🎉
🥳🥳🥳
I should go into E-Sports I clicked this video so fast!
Just remember us little people when you are raking in the big bucks with your League of Legends team.
I found the book a bit boring until the final lead up to the battle when it focused on the Malazan soldiers.
I don’t see the point of the hobbling story arc. Just a cruel sideshow to torture Tool, and by association continue to torture the most hard done by character in the series Toc the Younger.
You have to talk about the VERY cold and cinematic arrival of a certain dark character! 🧊
And the poem "Riddle of the Road of Gallan, Shake chant". 😊
I actually think that Philip and I glossed over that... I might have to return to that moment in a separate video.