1:11:20 Speaking of unnamed characters, one that left a huge impression on me was the Seerdomin guarding Toc and whose father used to be a fisherman in Coral. He didn‘t do much but he really humanised the Pannion army in my eyes
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.
Thanks so much for this conversation, A.P.! We never get to talk about everything we want to discuss, but that's a testament to just how rich these books are. Do you suppose people would watch us go on for the minimum of 10 hours of critical discussion this book deserves? We could set a new record on BookTube. As usual, my gratitude to you for these chats, my friend!
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.
@@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.
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.
For some reason (and I still like him) Whiskeyjack never got me excited to read him or did I really feel his death (and I could see it coming because of the leg). What got me was the tribute to Itkovian. When (I believe Gruntle?) turns around at his grave and the entire army is there, silent, to pay their respects, my breath actually caught. This would not be the last time in the series for this to happen, but it was the first. Can’t wait for you to get to Toll the Hounds.
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.
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!
Whiskeyjack's death was certainly heart-wrenching and upsetting, but more so due to its tragic avoidability and the lost happiness that could have been with him and Korlat. As others have mentioned, it was Itkovian's final sacrifice that really hit me hard; him taking on all the pain of the T'lan Imass, seeing the raw truth that they have carried their memories and sorrows for all those millennia, and then "I am done." That, to me was the highlight of the book. Tool reclaiming his "humanity" through his love for Toc and Kilava, as well as the redemption of the Seer, are honorable mentions as well.
Itkovians scene in Capustan fighting the Tenesscowri and then Brukhalians fall are two of the most white knuckle scenes I've ever read. The mortal sword's conversation about Rath Feners betrayal on the way to their demise is so powerful. I'm tearing up just recalling it now. Also, the comic relief of the scene with Picker and Blend aiding in the cleanup the destroyed buildings is so welcome after the siege. k'rul's gift to Buke... This is the most emotional, I've ever been while reading a book. Humor anger redemption melancholy forgiveness hope. You get at least a little bit of everything in this one. Gentlemen, thanks for the video.👍
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.
Great video guys. The waterworks always start for me when we get to hear the Imass memories. Of all the spectacular things that happen, this passage has always stuck with me. So much to cover in this one. The only section that I wish you had more time for was Toc, Tool, Envy, and the Segulah. Some of my favorite character interactions occur in those sections. And that great moment of misunderstanding of humor between Envy and Picker. Amazing stuff. Look forward to more conversations.
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.
Hey guys, thanks for the fantastic analysis! You touched on so many beautiful and sensitive themes in this discussion! I'm happy that you discussed motherhood and the postpartum depression, as I think it is really important to raise awareness about this painful issue. A.P. mentioned something I strongly resonate with: "the strength to stand up to do the right thing even when it is inconvenient" - this is one of the many things that I love about these books. Mr. Erikson's strong morals are visible throughout the books and the lessons are there for all of us. We've all done wrong along the way, but it's never too late to do better, to be better. I feel like he invites us to become better humans in such a beautiful way. P.S. Kruppe is... everything! Jokes aside, I love the fact that he is good and stays good. Always with good intentions. P.P.S. - I noticed - and appreciate - the fact that in these videos you talk about the author as Erikson, not "Steve" (as too many rush to call him)
@@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.
Great video guys! I loved the discussion about Tayschren in particular, he's so underrated and such a memorable character despite the limited page time. We all knew something was up with the flag-bearer, but the revelation was so well done. It even gave new meaning to Rake's quote earlier in the book, when they're all at the camp and he says "this place is a lodestone of power". Even though your gripe is very clearly with the trope itself, rather than how it was written in MoI, I'd still like to add to the cacophony of voices defending Erikson on the Stonny-Gruntle thing. While it's certainly problematic that Gruntle has this macho, possessive dynamic with Stonny, the fact that it's somewhat unique in the storyline is itself an argument in favor of the way Erikson handled it. He isn't portraying this as the norm, he is portraying this as one among the MANY different motivations and relationships between men and women in the series. At no point does he try to normalize it by making such things a pattern with his characters. You're 100% right that it's a tiresome and frustrating trope though. This video has so much to discuss, thank you. I'd been waiting for you guys to dive into MoI for a while. I just wanted to provide a count............................................................................................................................erpoint to your perspective.
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
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. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sliverfox & co. not wanting the T'lan Imass to dissolve away or die off is similar to Gimli & co in LOTR wanting to hold on to the Army of the undead(from the mountains) as they would be handy in the battle to come regardless of the promises made.
I'm only 30 minutes into this video and have much to watch, but thank you both for these insights. You provide a lot of illumination into something I struggle with in these books, namely understanding the big picture. I already understand more deeply the role of Kallor, the Elder Gods, and some of the conflicts within.
Great discussion again. The revelations about Tayschrenn also sheds some additional light on Laseen. She excuses herself to Kalam by saying that Tayschrenn’s efforts were “misguided” at Pale. This means, in its most charitable interpretation, that she was misinformed and doesn’t really know what’s going on. It puts into further doubt her grasp on the situation. And I tend to think that it shows she will just make stuff up to suit her own purposes. Another thing that is a nice contrast is the difference between the decision here not to massacre, and the modus operandi of Korbolo Dom, who seemingly never met a massacre that he didn’t like. I’m completely with you on the word ‘decimation.’ It literally turns my stomach.
'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 to you both, finished memories of ice a couple days ago and it’s fantastic to be able to come listen in on your conversation. It enriches my experience.
I’m doing a re-read of the first five books before I start the sixth and your spoiler videos have been very helpful in helping me understand them on a deeper level
I just finished the book last night and I am so thankful for these videos. There is so much to unpack after you finish each book. It's almost like the ending of the book where the story must to told and discussed. It would be tough go after reading these works to not have such great discussions to listen to.
I really appreciated the nuanced points you both made regarding Stonny and Gruntle. I started reading these books when I was in high school in 2002-ish. A lot of my views on fantasy have changed since then - for the better I hope - and these changes have largely come from learning more about the experiences of people who are not like me. As a young reader, I accepted fridging as easily as I accepted flails and loincloths. Your conversation about Stonny’s fridging has given me a lot more to think about.
My friend introduced me to this series about two months ago, already going onto book 4. Love watching these vids after books as a refresher. Great vids thanks guys!!!!!
I finished reading Memories of Ice earlier this year (and House of Chains last week!) and I've just found your channel(s) looking for good Malazan content in TH-cam and I'm so glad I did! Great in depth conversation about a book that became, despite its length and density, one of the best things I've read. The amount of emotions it triggered on me was... unparalleled, I'd say. Itkovian's sacrifice and the "compassion is priceless" conversation with the Imass is a sequence that lives rent-free in my head ever since I read it. It's impossible for me not to get misty eyed when I remember that, or Whiskeyjack's death, or the epilogue's last line that you both highlighted in this video (it hits like a ton of bricks especially when you remember how heartbreaking the end of the Chain of Dogs storyline in DG actually is). Or Picker's thought of the Bridgeburners' motto: "First in. Last out. For the last time." That one kinda destroys me in a very special way. So... kudos to you both for such a great, in-depth, thematically rich and respectful conversation about MBOTF. I can't wait to see your House of Chains discussion next!
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.
Really great discussion! Reading the series for the first time, and hearing these conversations and analysis of the themes and text is making my first readthrough so enjoyable
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.
Such great themes: motherhood, empathy, compassion, and memory. The "insta-love" between Paran and Tattersail is a criticism I often hear about Gardens of the Moon, and I can imagine the age difference being a problem for some in this book. Those things never bothered me. I appreciated their complicated and confusing dynamic in MoI. While there is a very sad component to it, I love how you described them slowly beginning to recognize memory not aligning with identity or reality. Perhaps that recognition gave them a sense of agency. I'll quickly add that I'm starting to love Kruppe more now (I never thought I would say that!). I'm going to show my ignorance here and admit I didn't know about the overused "fridging" trope. I can imagine how the behavior, motivation, and transformative outcome could've been explored differently, but I'm wondering if the human emotion part of it might be universal? I'm open to being wrong again! Thank you for another wonderful discussion!
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!
Thank you gentlemen for another great talk. I am on my second tour on audiobook (Toll the hounds atm) and the debt of story has confirmed Malazan as my all time favorite. So to find the both of you and the amazing talks combined with AP narrative deep dives makes this adventure all the more interesting and fascinating. Also helped me to respect the slower times and feel the underlying themes. Keep up the great work! I would love to see more hours of these talks or listen to it on a podcast.
Once again, I come to the very wise and very evil duo of Malaztube for Ascendency 😂 Just finished the book this weekend and recorded my own video ramblings. In this one I especially loved the themes of not only motherhood (the metaphor of post partum depression and children flying the nest hit me "in the feels") but parenthood in general. And also compassion, empathy and our ability to listen. And listen not only to what is said, but what is unsaid. And also a theme of spiritual balance stood out to me. And also, Kruppe is easily my favourite character in the series thus far 😂 kindness, joy and fierce intellect beneath the scallywag facade. Great chat as always AP and Philip! Cheers, Carlos
I loved this book. So good and so much emotional driven storytelling. It’s almost unbelievable the depth this series has. Malazan is definitely worth the effort.
So I finished this book earlier today. Amazing book! So many great characters and arcs, I’m still trying to process Kruppe remains one of my favorite characters, I liked him from the first chapter he was featured in, in Gardens of the Moon. He has all the best lines. I hope to see him again in some of the later books. Going to take a short break from the series, to digest what I’ve read. You videos, and others, help with that, since I don’t really know anyone who has read them that I could discuss the books with. Love this series!
Well it took me a month and a half to read this fantastic book, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Definitely an emotional roller coaster. I agree that Kruppe is unique in his ability to dream a new world (warren) into existence, thereby giving the Mhybe a chance to relive her life. K’rull is the only other character, so far in the story, that we are told created a warren and he is an Elder God. Finally, Erickson is masterful in making me sympathetic toward the Seer and his tragic youth. Once again, fantastic exploration into this world. Thanks 😊.
Hi I know I’m a couple of years late to this but the conversation at the end I wholeheartedly agree with. I look forward to these videos as soon I finish each book! I’ll check back in after House of Chains thank you!!
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.
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.
Awesome convo. These disscussions enrich my experience of moving through the books. On the gruntle stoney issue , in all fairness to erikson, he calls this out in sonny's reaction after the battle. She says it was not OK for him to use her as his excuse.
I found the discussion about Stonny and Gruntle so interesting. Just to throw in a female perspective (although I'm sure some will disagree), I was ok with it. I think if he had just found her immediately post assault and she was completely without agency and it was only him doing a revenge/ protection motivation, it would have bothered me more, but it's clear here that she got her revenge already. She was not a passive victim whose suffering only served his storyline. I found the moment so touching honestly, the way he looked after her but still respected her boundaries. He offered her a helping hand but did not force it. In terms of that rage then motivating him, I feel like that was really mirroring Buke's storyline of snapping out of your selfish misery when you realise the ones you love are suffering. I also get the sense that Gruntle and Stonny have a kind of mutual, not entirely platonic love for each other which may be possessive and somewhat unhealthy, but is also very realistic.
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!
I finished MoI at the weekend and absolutely loved it. I watched your talk because I hoped you'd answer two questions I was pondering about. The first one, why Itkovian released the T'lan Imass right before the battle. You offered an answer to this, which I also vaguely thought of but couldn't fully accept - not because I would ever call it wrong, though. I think this is a plastic rendition of the "deontology vs consequentialism" ethical dilemma (a popular example would be the "trolley problem"). While Itkovian is a deontologist, who seems to believe that the goodness of an action should be determined by whether or not it is good based on a set of rules, regardless of what it actually leads to (in this case, Malazans slaughtered by the K'ell hunters). Those, on the other hand, who think he should have waited till the end of the battle at least, would probably argue that the judgement of the goodness of his action cannot disregard what it results in (saving or not saving the lives of hundreds (?) of fellow soldiers). Although there are exceptions, in most ethical dilemmas I find myself on the consequentialist side, so that's why I couldn't fully understand or agree with what Itkovian did. This might partly be due to the fact that as a human being I can't possibly imagine the depth of suffering the T'lan Imass went through. If I could (and, being the Shield Anvil, Itkovian may have been in such a position), I might do the same. Nonetheless, I found the building of his mound the most moving part of the book. The second question you haven't touched upon and I am curious what you think about is why the Malazans rushed so to Coral. It exhausted the soldiers and separated their waves of attack, etc. and I don't see any real advantage they gained by it. They prevented the Pannion trap in the woods but.. is that all? Not being aware of the remaining K'ell hunters, they had thought it would be a relatively easy siege but Dujek is repeatedly emphasized to be a great commander - why take such an unnecessary risk? As far as the comical scenes are concerned, my favorite bit was Gruntle and Toc's meeting at the end. Toc's asking what being a Mortal Sword was even about was hilarious.. :D Thanks for your discussion, I am looking forward to listening to more. I truly appreciate how you actually discuss themes and motifs at length (as opposed the majority of book reviews, where the reviewer hardly goes beyond how they liked or disliked some characters and the book itself). Boy, do I miss the literary seminars at university..
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 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 fully agree with you both, that these discussions are the wonderful icing on the tremendous cake that are these books, and I look forward to them immensely after finishing each one. One critique I wanted to offer was I think Korlat was done a disservice for much of the book. For most of MoI, she just serves the purpose of inflating Whiskeyjack and Anomander. Much of what she talks about is just how powerful and amazing these other characters are. I believe this gets corrected towards the end of her arc, we get much more of her and her interior, but it was close to being too little too late. That being said, the image of her broken underneath a weeping Moon's Spawn? Oof. My heart is beautifully broken once again.
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.
Great stuff gents. One thing to add. Interesting commentary on Empires and previous descriptions of Malazans as rotting and corrupt and then to see the literal manifestation of that with the Pannions. But then there’s the conversation between Brrod, Rake, Kallor, etc when they realize that Dujek’s been lying about their “outlaw” status. Their conclusion is that the Malazans aren’t the worst thing ever and they have brought system of laws and trade and other positives to conquered lands and so they should just let Dujek’s betrayal slide. Reminds me of Life of Brian and that whole sequence around “what have the Romans done for us”.
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.
Amazing conversaton AP and Philip - just thanks so much for all this that you'vee done, I'm sure it's great fun, but it's such an overwhelming gift to us all. Am curious about the Gruntle/Stonny thing - I totally agree with AP, I generally think Erickson handles these topics well, but does so with a little less care here... However curious (and it'll be a while) how Stonny's treatment in book 8 mitigates, helps, or hinders what happens in book 3? Torn on it myself, especially since it's so far out...
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.
Man oh man. What a fantastic reading experience this third book was. Gardens captured my imagination Deadhouse put us on the Historians shoulder to witness an epic pilgrimage. "i would have you see this historian." -and that was just one of the arcs This book 3 finale was a pleasure. The levels of satisfying closures were something more palpable. Had me smiling in my own silent reverence on the hill. And of course, was I a bit confused at times? Yep! Bht were more pieces of the great puzzle revealed? Yep! If the first two books teetered on 5 star ratings, for whatever attempts to be precise, this one was a 6 star haha Great chat
About the modern take on Gruntle's motivation because of Stonny, that happened to me in real life. Granted I graduated from college in 1990, so I would be part of the past era you speak of, but a female friend of the dorm, whom none of us dated, had that happen to her. There were about 20 of us combing the campus looking for this guy and it was very good in hindsight that the police found him first because it would not have turned out well for him and most likely us for what we probably would have done. I don't see how that would not be a motivation in this day and age. I didn't question that scene at all.
I definitely agree that thinking the paran and silverfox thing was creepy has got to be the most surface level read you could make. Going in I was like, ooh how is he going to handle this? And I thought he handled it very well, and not at all creepily.
The real discussion is why there is no proper trade paperback release of this book🤔 The mass market paperback just can’t contain the awesomeness of this book.
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 just finished MoI a few days ago, but had to muse on it for a good day or two afterwards. Itkovian's arc was powerful and for me hit the hardest. I joined the military in 1995 and am now retiring from it. I really think it is difficult for younger generations to understand the worldview of generations prior. For me, that old gruff NCO that is retiring after 25 years was a Vietnam vet. Now I am that guy. The world has changed drastically and so has society's view on social justice and gender norms. MoI was a fantastic book in my opinion. It hit all those cool fantasy things like the undead Dinos and such, but man, these arcs with the Mhybe, Silverfox, the I'mass and Itkovian....or even the Pannion Seer, just push this book (and series) to a whole other level. The humor also hits hard because of its contrast to these heavier themes.
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.
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.
@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.
This Spoiler talks turned into an extra motivation to keep reading the book, guys. I'm starting House of Chains right now and I can't wait to end it and hear you talk about it 😃
@@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" 😂
"Hark Kaminsod! Witness the Mystery Revelations from the Metaphysical Debate of Aeipi the Hibernian and Philippos of Yaankeey on the Passion of Itkovian the Mercifull, the Fall of Whiskey-o-jack by his Wounded Knee, the "It's complicated" remeeting of Silverfox the Reborned and Ganoes the Dragon Croupier and the further culinary adventures of Hammerhit Kruppe the Slimey!" Ok, back in serious mode: Great discussion on the Pains of Motherhood, Pannion & Stonny! If you two fine folks need a Part Deux to cover more spoiler ground, by all means do so! PS: That blasted Cabo line, AP, that blasted Cabo line....Now I have the mental image of Ganoes and Tattersail drunk & snogging in some Mexican bar, set to "The Pina Colada Song", stuck in my mind! ... Oh well... At least it is not set to "Margaritaville"...
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 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.
i'm a woman and absolutely hate rape being used as a motivator fora male character. However, in MOI I think this was handled well because stonny DOES call out gruntle on it-it's seen as a failing on his part instead of him being SUCH a hero for it.
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.
I’ve just finished the book last night and my eyes are so swollen it’s painful. I’ve never cried so much reading a book. The last 100 pages were a struggle. I just want to add this because I see a lot of people making Itkovian the ultimate hero, but I was actually horrified and angry when he went to the Imass. So many people died because of his inability to wait or see beyond his compassion? It is still commendable but if he could have held off just a bit more- until the Hunters were dealt with, there would have been less slaughter. Honestly just one more hour.. could have saved so many lives. But yeah, this books (and whole series so far) is a true masterpiece and I wish it were more widely known.
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
Wish you wouldn’t have focused so much on the prologue that you’ve already covered, at length, in videos of their own. Otherwise, great video guys! I watch these types of videos after reading books to better understand what is actually going on and you have helped in that regard.
I've just finished Memories of Ice, and the point about tayschren not being as much as a doosh as we thought he was, well it's interesting because our first impressions on him in GoTM really does set this fixed lens on the character, "this is how he is and I won't view him any other way" because of what he's done, and he is dislikeable in that book. I'm gonna talk about Night of Knives here so just skip this if you haven't read it. The confusing thing to me was, I go ahead and read Night of Knives before MoI, and I'm seeing a version of this character that isn't what I thought he was. Sure he is strict to a degree but he shows of a kindness to Kiska that actually makes me like him a bit. And so I'm just going "well did something happen to this guy that he goes from a not total doosh to being one?" , then the revelation in this MoI about those moments in pale and it really does click and make sense. Really I'm glad I read NoK before MoI because it gave a glimpse into tayschren that actually complemented his character in MoI, as confusing as it was to me at the time. Granted you have this conversation between him and laseen, and laseen basically said he's more concerned with himself than the empire, and it was a harsh sort of comment out of some spite it felt like, but maybe laseen does really think that, and it even has some merit, but tayschren actually risked himself and expended so much of his power to help in pushing back the stormriders, the much easier option would be just to abandon Malaz, but he chose to stay and fight, he also regretted allowing the decision laseen made to prohibit sorcery, which also has a big impact in the defence of Malaz. One final thing I want to say which leads back to my first point is, when that conversation between Dujek and WJ takes place, and you're getting this information that tay wasn't really trying to destroy the bridgeburners, I was sceptical, similar to how WJ is sceptical as to if Dujek knew more about those events then he's letting off, which is reasonable. That's just how much tay in GoTM has an impact on the reader, even have seeing a softer side to tay in NoK, I still had scepticism if he sent the bridgeburners to their deaths or not, just because how he is in GoTM. He never got to apologize to WJ, and he was waiting for "the right moment", I guess till after everything in coral was finished with, I wonder if he also regretted holding off that apology, similar to how WJ held off healing his leg, I don't know if that comes off as a similar type of stubbornness also, like "Oh I have to wait until this perfect moment" and if he genuinely wanted to make sure the apology was presented with what he thought might be the most meaning, something like that.
Gruntle’s transformation is signalled far ahead, it’s not a sudden change resulting from Stonny’s rape. His journey is mirrored by Buke, who was passed out drunk while his family died. Gruntle is stuck not saying or acting when he could - he wants to protect Stonny as a captain, not just as a man. He has to collect her from a binge at the start, and later she is ranging too far ahead of the caravan. He knows instinctively he should reel her in some, but he doesn’t do enough. He’s also trying to draw out Buke’s self-forgiveness, because he knows he is likely to fall into the same trap as Buke, and he needs to know there is redemption. His embrace of unconsciousness, of inaction, has bottled up his instinct and it erupts. He’s like a caged animal, a tiger. Perhaps it still could have been unravelled differently, but it has an inevitability to it. Along with the need for Stonny to (*spoiler*) become a rejecting mother, it makes sense.
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.
So you went to bed, slept, woke up, and talked for a couple hours more right? 😅 Such a good long conversation about this awesome book, and barely a mention of Bauchelain if any 🙄 clearly the star of the show But seriously, great talk! Glad you touched on the relationship between Ganoes and Tattersail/Silverfox. The criticism of 'badly written relationships' comes up, a lot. And while I can see where it's coming from, I disagree completely. It just requires a bit more digging, a bit more empathy - the relationships aren't built up from the ground and spoonfed, just as nothing is in these books. The theme of motherhood is handled fantastically here, and will come back in later books and Kharkanas. The Mhybe suffering in silence (of a sort), and Silverfox herself working in secret to bring solace to her mother and be worthy of her sacrifice 💔 heartbreaking. The criticism about Gruntle finding motivation in Stonny - I think you're right. It didn't bother me at the time, and I think Erikson would avoid it now. It has become a trope filled with negativity. But in this case, it still does not bother me today. For one thing, I buy Gruntle's arc. But much more importantly, Stonny's side is handled great as well - and that's precisely the problem most times this trope comes up. Already looking forward to House of Chains!
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.
You have this thing with how other imass view onos toolan, the first sword, like when envy was talking to lanas tog, and they sort of talked about how tool is just different from the rest of the imass to which she replies "he is the first sword" , I think the 2 times this happens in their conversation is, him disagreeing with the ritual and also him having a sense of humour. So the reasoning they use for tool differing is him being the first sword, and perhaps this stems from the original thing of him not wanting to forego the ritual. The moment when we see tool again, as a mortal, was a sort of bitter sweet moment for me, because you can't help but feel happy for tool, since he's smiling when he walks up to toc to check if he's alright, and toc can't recognise him, and tool says he'll always keep him in his memory 💔 . Tool is different in that he never had his suffering taken away by itkovian, becomes mortal, which might even awaken or enliven the memories he had when he was alive, i dont even know, and yet he can STILL smile, and find reasons to be happy, he had even just lost to mok pretty much, and it's even that acceptance with that, from before when he was saying he can't have an equal, which was also kind of saddening to see. I think if someone when to lanas tog and asked her why is onos toolan able to smile despite all these things she'd just shrug and go "😐 he is the mortal sword" tool is simply built different. there's also a sort of counter point in my head where perhaps becoming mortal is precisely what allows him to express himself like that in the first place, similar to when korlat finally wept tears from WJ heart, I think it was from caladans pov, but it's mentioned how korlat's stone heart became mortal, something like that, and even another scene when she's flying with her brother, and her brother tells says how the tiiste andii don't have the gift of grieving, so she should go to the "mortal" plain and weep. "Mother Dark, but these mortals live!"
Im 15% percent into the book. Its a bit hard to follow early because it keeps jumping pov’s around. Do you feel that there is some Wheel of Time influences here with Setoc and the wolves?
Wolves in fantasy, and wolves in mythology go much further back than Wheel of Time. Romulus and Remus, Odin's Wolves, the Norse Fenrir, Zoroastrian legend, not to mention the multiple Native American stories involving wolf spirits, and the European legends of berserkers wearing wolfskins, even The Jungle Book. Additionally, Erikson hasn't read The Wheel of Time... I think he may have read the first book, but I am not sure of that, but I am fairly sure he hasn't read the series.
Last comment, did we ever figure out why Korlat shifted the truth a bit about when discussing when it was that Whiskeyjack’s leg broke? She insisted it broke after he was killed, but we know it didn’t. Was she trying to keep the folks who could have healed him from feeling guilt?
@@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.
Coltaine's sacrifice really made me feel and love Malazan after all the confusion in GotM. But Memories of Ice was even better, the sheer crudeness of the pannions eating everyone away, Gruntle leading a rebellion out of nothing, Wiskeyjack and the marine's death, the "first in, last out" part, the Mhybe's suffering.. But nothing compared to Itkovian's noble sacrifice, that was up there with Coltaine. Great video, it cleared out some confusion I had. Still don't agree with the Gruntle part, he didn't care for the war but entered it because his friend got raped and took out his whole potential. I think if we had the strength we would all do the same
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.
I really was confused about Paran's obsession with Tattersail already in Gardens of the Moon tbh. They knew each other for a week or so and had one fling and somehow Paran talked about her like they were married for years I never understood it
I can't see how there's any way that Kruppe is a mortal. I suspect he is an elder god. I heard Erikson say in a interview that he was the most powerful.
Just an aside here: I notice at least four of the Subterranean editions in the background, there are probably more. In other words: thousands and thousands of dollars worth of books… 😳
Considering you made a 20 minute video on 2 pages it is hard to cover 1200 pages before nighty night. But that just means more for later. But as another fan of wordplay with some similar pet peeves who listened to George Carlin before I probably should have, you have added decimate/devastate to the list.
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.
Hi AP. Been thinking about MOI alot today and came back to this video. Mostly about Itkovian and Whiskeyjack. What you said about Itkovian doing the right thing as to the convenient thing really hit home today. The scene with Itkovian and the Imass and the execution with Whiskeyjack and Rake have been on my mind today. How Rake wants to spare Whiskeyjack the burden of killing the Women of the Dead Seed and he mistakes his intentions. Ok.... deep breath. I had to put my dog of 13 years down today. He, as it turns out, had stomach cancer and couldn't eat and drink properly anymore. I didn't know that until today. The veterinarian told me my options, one of which being I could put him on pain meds and spend more time with him and watch him die of thirst or to put him to sleep. Part of me wanted so badly just to keep him as long as I could. I knew he was suffering but still didn't want to let go. I took a deep breath and called my wife to come down. We talked and I signed the papers to end my friends life. Later this day, the guilt I felt was overwhelming. I told this to my wife and she said that she had wished that she had signed to take the burden off of me. I immediately thought of MOI and was comforted. Steve was preparing me for this moment. He obviously didn't intend that. I didn't know that I would need it. Please thank him for me when you talk with him next. It has been a horrible day and Steve has helped me to limp through it. Going to read the Itkovian scene and cry and go to bed. Thanks AP. P. S. He was a good dog. I wish that I could have been his Gesler.
Ngl when I heard that Tayschrenn was trying to save the Bridgeburners and A'Karonys was killed by Nightchill and she died cuz she betrayed them and not that Tayschrenn was the betrayer and he later on did his best in the battle at Coral he instantly became for me not a favorite exactly but I really like him now
So do you think that the ‘betrayal’ that killed Nightchill (per Kallor’s curse) was not someone betraying her, but rather HER betrayal of killing that other mage (A’kronys)
Thanks for you insightful comments! My problem with the Malazan novels is - as much as I like them - that death (very often) has no consequences, which takes away from the emotional impact of a lot of scenes, because I always expect a "dead" character to crop up again some chapter (or novels) later. A good example here is Duiker - one of my favourite characters. But how much more gripping and sad would it have been, if he had actually died.
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. :)
i very much disagreewith the gruntle/stoneycritique - IMO the 'call to arms is not because she got raped but because a friend got violated... and gruntle is very much hot iron, his response is totally logical - also the moment we are no longer supposed to act when friends and loved ones gets violated we should disband society because we have failed as a civilazation.
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.
Hi AP I have given it a lot of thought about Gruntles reaction to what happened to stonny and I dont think Erickson could of written any think different that would believable to how he reacted unless he actually killed her off, and we have moved on in the last 20 yrs but maybe only in the fact on how we are told how we should feel and what is appropriate, but ultimately rightly or wrongly I think men on whole still feel the need to be protective of women and probably always will probably going back to our cave man times :) . We only have to look as what Liam Neeson said in his interview on what happened to his friend and the thoughts that went through his head and his honestly has probably damaged his career! And we also know that Gruntle is very much anti war anti army and this is reforces even more in Cripled God when he is with kilva so for him to react the way he did had to be something big and personal.
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.
I think the fridge trope is more egregious when the female's only purpose in the story is as an adventure hook for a male. Stonny has imo a great part leading up to and for the rest of her time on the pages. It is a bit of a girlfriend in the fridge but, it's a slight one to me.
Sleep as you will, but, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing stopping you from making an additional, or multiple, spoiler recaps. Thanks to you both for another great discussion! And further thanks to you, AP, for raising the spectre of 'fridging' with Stonny. I'm also currently re-reading the series, about 2/3rds of the way through MoI, and that stood out to me this time around as well. Its presence here isn't as egregious as other instances that I've seen, but it is still worth identifying it as such. I also agree that Erikson, if he were writing it today, may have gone about it differently. At the same time, I also wonder if he was intentionally calling it out. While I don't think fridging had been coined back in 2000, the concept of 'man spurned into action after his significant other has been raped/injured/killed' has been around for awhile. Either way, thanks to you both again for the video!
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. 😊😊😊
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.
Why would you retroactively criticize Erikson's writing just because fridging became more rampant in the modern day? Wasn't his fault. What does one gain from that? "From a modern perspective" Good thing this wasn't written in the current year!
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.
What is the problem with Gruntle responding to a friend getting hurt? Get over it Christ…. It didn’t even register with me, I just saw someone responding to a friend getting hurt, I didn’t focus on the rape. So much time spent on that…. “I don’t blow this out of proportion” and then speaks about it for 5 minutes.
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.
Well, I hate Kallor, I hate Silverfox, I hate Tayschrenn... so there's no conflict of negative interest here. 😁 And I think I dislike them so because they feel like wasted characters with unaccomplished potential, at the level of the entire series. I'm feeling a bit terrible because as a woman (but not a mother), I have almost no sympathy/empathy with the Mhybe. I might have if the monumental miscommunication between characters in her arc hadn't been dragged beyond the point of ridicule. And if much more interesting story lines weren't interrupted with the same, endlessly recycled pity party. It dragged on forever and completely lost its poignancy. As for Gruntle and Stonny... I didn't read it as Gruntle went tiger on the Panions just to avenge Stonny. To me it was the partially eaten child. That standard they raised and slaughtered under was the motivation.
Luckily Kallor, Tayschrenn, and Silverfox all continue to appear in the Malazan books, especially Esslemont's, so their story arcs are really just beginning. 😊
Spoiler alert. Spoiler alert SPOILERS COMING I hated Tayshrenn. I wanted to keep hating him. He eventually becomes T'Shrenn. When D'rek is failing. He takes drek's place and if you see burn as earth wu or terra firma, I think D'rek is the two innermost layers of the planet. The molten core of earth spins one way and the penultimate layer spins contrary. This is what creates the Dynamo, which creates the magnetic field which protects the planet from cosmic radiation which would wipe life of the planet
Im going to say something highly unpopular. Itkovian s Arc does NOT sit well with me. Not because of the timing, not because of deserving or not of compassion. What I dont like is the whole Idea that one person can magically attone for another, that is far too christian like for my taste.
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.
Thanks so much for this. I just finished this last night and I love watching these because it helps me get more insight and maybe clarify a few things I missed or didn’t quite grasp.
1:11:20 Speaking of unnamed characters, one that left a huge impression on me was the Seerdomin guarding Toc and whose father used to be a fisherman in Coral. He didn‘t do much but he really humanised the Pannion army in my eyes
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.
Thanks so much for this conversation, A.P.! We never get to talk about everything we want to discuss, but that's a testament to just how rich these books are. Do you suppose people would watch us go on for the minimum of 10 hours of critical discussion this book deserves? We could set a new record on BookTube. As usual, my gratitude to you for these chats, my friend!
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.
I finished this book 30 minutes ago. Tears, man, lots of tears.
“I have lost a friend.”
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.
The “I am not yet done” storyline of Iktovian was as beautiful and as tragic as anything I have ever read.
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.
For some reason (and I still like him) Whiskeyjack never got me excited to read him or did I really feel his death (and I could see it coming because of the leg). What got me was the tribute to Itkovian. When (I believe Gruntle?) turns around at his grave and the entire army is there, silent, to pay their respects, my breath actually caught. This would not be the last time in the series for this to happen, but it was the first. Can’t wait for you to get to Toll the Hounds.
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!
Whiskeyjack's death was certainly heart-wrenching and upsetting, but more so due to its tragic avoidability and the lost happiness that could have been with him and Korlat. As others have mentioned, it was Itkovian's final sacrifice that really hit me hard; him taking on all the pain of the T'lan Imass, seeing the raw truth that they have carried their memories and sorrows for all those millennia, and then "I am done." That, to me was the highlight of the book. Tool reclaiming his "humanity" through his love for Toc and Kilava, as well as the redemption of the Seer, are honorable mentions as well.
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
Itkovians scene in Capustan fighting the Tenesscowri and then Brukhalians fall are two of the most white knuckle scenes I've ever read. The mortal sword's conversation about Rath Feners betrayal on the way to their demise is so powerful. I'm tearing up just recalling it now. Also, the comic relief of the scene with Picker and Blend aiding in the cleanup the destroyed buildings is so welcome after the siege. k'rul's gift to Buke... This is the most emotional, I've ever been while reading a book. Humor anger redemption melancholy forgiveness hope. You get at least a little bit of everything in this one. Gentlemen, thanks for the video.👍
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. 😂
Another goat, another video. I’m beginning to detect a pattern.
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.
I love this conversations, no one to share fantasy and sci fi with in my close reality, this channels are like a blessing
Great video guys. The waterworks always start for me when we get to hear the Imass memories. Of all the spectacular things that happen, this passage has always stuck with me. So much to cover in this one. The only section that I wish you had more time for was Toc, Tool, Envy, and the Segulah. Some of my favorite character interactions occur in those sections. And that great moment of misunderstanding of humor between Envy and Picker. Amazing stuff. Look forward to more conversations.
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.
Hey guys, thanks for the fantastic analysis! You touched on so many beautiful and sensitive themes in this discussion! I'm happy that you discussed motherhood and the postpartum depression, as I think it is really important to raise awareness about this painful issue.
A.P. mentioned something I strongly resonate with: "the strength to stand up to do the right thing even when it is inconvenient" - this is one of the many things that I love about these books. Mr. Erikson's strong morals are visible throughout the books and the lessons are there for all of us. We've all done wrong along the way, but it's never too late to do better, to be better. I feel like he invites us to become better humans in such a beautiful way.
P.S. Kruppe is... everything! Jokes aside, I love the fact that he is good and stays good. Always with good intentions.
P.P.S. - I noticed - and appreciate - the fact that in these videos you talk about the author as Erikson, not "Steve" (as too many rush to call him)
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! :)
We “hit” the like button even before the deliberations start :)
Which shows your excellent taste!
Thanks for the trust. I hope you didn't regret it.
Convo at 1:14:00 or so on "decimate" really tickled my pickle
I love that "literal" is literally its own antonym
Love this channel! Thank You!
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"
Onos visiting Toc at the end. My goodness, I was crushed. What a book.
Great video guys! I loved the discussion about Tayschren in particular, he's so underrated and such a memorable character despite the limited page time. We all knew something was up with the flag-bearer, but the revelation was so well done. It even gave new meaning to Rake's quote earlier in the book, when they're all at the camp and he says "this place is a lodestone of power".
Even though your gripe is very clearly with the trope itself, rather than how it was written in MoI, I'd still like to add to the cacophony of voices defending Erikson on the Stonny-Gruntle thing. While it's certainly problematic that Gruntle has this macho, possessive dynamic with Stonny, the fact that it's somewhat unique in the storyline is itself an argument in favor of the way Erikson handled it. He isn't portraying this as the norm, he is portraying this as one among the MANY different motivations and relationships between men and women in the series. At no point does he try to normalize it by making such things a pattern with his characters. You're 100% right that it's a tiresome and frustrating trope though.
This video has so much to discuss, thank you. I'd been waiting for you guys to dive into MoI for a while. I just wanted to provide a count............................................................................................................................erpoint to your perspective.
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
love the "with added philip chase" thumb :D
“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?
Sliverfox & co. not wanting the T'lan Imass to dissolve away or die off is similar to Gimli & co in LOTR wanting to hold on to the Army of the undead(from the mountains) as they would be handy in the battle to come regardless of the promises made.
I'm only 30 minutes into this video and have much to watch, but thank you both for these insights. You provide a lot of illumination into something I struggle with in these books, namely understanding the big picture. I already understand more deeply the role of Kallor, the Elder Gods, and some of the conflicts within.
Great discussion again. The revelations about Tayschrenn also sheds some additional light on Laseen. She excuses herself to Kalam by saying that Tayschrenn’s efforts were “misguided” at Pale. This means, in its most charitable interpretation, that she was misinformed and doesn’t really know what’s going on. It puts into further doubt her grasp on the situation. And I tend to think that it shows she will just make stuff up to suit her own purposes.
Another thing that is a nice contrast is the difference between the decision here not to massacre, and the modus operandi of Korbolo Dom, who seemingly never met a massacre that he didn’t like.
I’m completely with you on the word ‘decimation.’ It literally turns my stomach.
'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 to you both, finished memories of ice a couple days ago and it’s fantastic to be able to come listen in on your conversation. It enriches my experience.
I am really happy that you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.
I’m doing a re-read of the first five books before I start the sixth and your spoiler videos have been very helpful in helping me understand them on a deeper level
I am glad that you are enjoying them. Thanks for watching.
I just finished the book last night and I am so thankful for these videos. There is so much to unpack after you finish each book. It's almost like the ending of the book where the story must to told and discussed. It would be tough go after reading these works to not have such great discussions to listen to.
I am so pleased that you are enjoying the discussions. Thanks for stopping by and letting me know.
I really appreciated the nuanced points you both made regarding Stonny and Gruntle. I started reading these books when I was in high school in 2002-ish. A lot of my views on fantasy have changed since then - for the better I hope - and these changes have largely come from learning more about the experiences of people who are not like me. As a young reader, I accepted fridging as easily as I accepted flails and loincloths. Your conversation about Stonny’s fridging has given me a lot more to think about.
Thanks Jagarr. I am not the final say on anything, but I thought that it was worth raising and discussing.
My friend introduced me to this series about two months ago, already going onto book 4. Love watching these vids after books as a refresher. Great vids thanks guys!!!!!
I finished reading Memories of Ice earlier this year (and House of Chains last week!) and I've just found your channel(s) looking for good Malazan content in TH-cam and I'm so glad I did! Great in depth conversation about a book that became, despite its length and density, one of the best things I've read. The amount of emotions it triggered on me was... unparalleled, I'd say. Itkovian's sacrifice and the "compassion is priceless" conversation with the Imass is a sequence that lives rent-free in my head ever since I read it. It's impossible for me not to get misty eyed when I remember that, or Whiskeyjack's death, or the epilogue's last line that you both highlighted in this video (it hits like a ton of bricks especially when you remember how heartbreaking the end of the Chain of Dogs storyline in DG actually is).
Or Picker's thought of the Bridgeburners' motto: "First in. Last out. For the last time."
That one kinda destroys me in a very special way.
So... kudos to you both for such a great, in-depth, thematically rich and respectful conversation about MBOTF. I can't wait to see your House of Chains discussion next!
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.
Really great discussion! Reading the series for the first time, and hearing these conversations and analysis of the themes and text is making my first readthrough so enjoyable
I am very happy that you enjoyed them and that they are proving interesting.
Thanks for this insightful conversation, highlighting the marvelous literary works Steven and Ian have provided us.
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've said it once and I'll say it again, a shout out for Itkovian! Also honourable mention for Gruntle and his character arc
Gruntle going reverse D'vers was pretty amazing.
Such great themes: motherhood, empathy, compassion, and memory. The "insta-love" between Paran and Tattersail is a criticism I often hear about Gardens of the Moon, and I can imagine the age difference being a problem for some in this book. Those things never bothered me. I appreciated their complicated and confusing dynamic in MoI. While there is a very sad component to it, I love how you described them slowly beginning to recognize memory not aligning with identity or reality. Perhaps that recognition gave them a sense of agency. I'll quickly add that I'm starting to love Kruppe more now (I never thought I would say that!).
I'm going to show my ignorance here and admit I didn't know about the overused "fridging" trope. I can imagine how the behavior, motivation, and transformative outcome could've been explored differently, but I'm wondering if the human emotion part of it might be universal? I'm open to being wrong again!
Thank you for another wonderful discussion!
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'm pretty late to the party but this video was fantastic! I've been waiting for you guys to cover this book since your first discussion together.
You aren't late. The party doesn't start until you get here.
Thank you gentlemen for another great talk. I am on my second tour on audiobook (Toll the hounds atm) and the debt of story has confirmed Malazan as my all time favorite. So to find the both of you and the amazing talks combined with AP narrative deep dives makes this adventure all the more interesting and fascinating. Also helped me to respect the slower times and feel the underlying themes. Keep up the great work! I would love to see more hours of these talks or listen to it on a podcast.
I am so glad that you are enjoying the videos. I really hope that they have helped increase your enjoyment of the series.
Once again, I come to the very wise and very evil duo of Malaztube for Ascendency 😂
Just finished the book this weekend and recorded my own video ramblings. In this one I especially loved the themes of not only motherhood (the metaphor of post partum depression and children flying the nest hit me "in the feels") but parenthood in general. And also compassion, empathy and our ability to listen. And listen not only to what is said, but what is unsaid. And also a theme of spiritual balance stood out to me.
And also, Kruppe is easily my favourite character in the series thus far 😂 kindness, joy and fierce intellect beneath the scallywag facade.
Great chat as always AP and Philip!
Cheers, Carlos
I am glad that you enjoyed the discussion and I will certainly be tuning in to hear your thoughts on the book.
I loved this book. So good and so much emotional driven storytelling. It’s almost unbelievable the depth this series has. Malazan is definitely worth the effort.
So I finished this book earlier today. Amazing book!
So many great characters and arcs, I’m still trying to process
Kruppe remains one of my favorite characters, I liked him from the first chapter he was featured in, in Gardens of the Moon. He has all the best lines.
I hope to see him again in some of the later books.
Going to take a short break from the series, to digest what I’ve read. You videos, and others, help with that, since I don’t really know anyone who has read them that I could discuss the books with.
Love this series!
I am glad that you enjoyed them so far. I am really happy that you are enjoying the videos. Thanks for watching.
Well it took me a month and a half to read this fantastic book, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Definitely an emotional roller coaster. I agree that Kruppe is unique in his ability to dream a new world (warren) into existence, thereby giving the Mhybe a chance to relive her life. K’rull is the only other character, so far in the story, that we are told created a warren and he is an Elder God. Finally, Erickson is masterful in making me sympathetic toward the Seer and his tragic youth. Once again, fantastic exploration into this world. Thanks 😊.
Hi Francois. I am very glad that you enjoyed it.
Thank you for watching and leaving a comment.
Great to hear from you.
Really wonderful insightful breakdown
I'm always waiting eagerly to the spoiler part of the discussions and MoI is one of my favorite in this world so I enjoyed it very much
I am very glad that you enjoyed it. These chats with Philip are a lot of fun.
Hi I know I’m a couple of years late to this but the conversation at the end I wholeheartedly agree with. I look forward to these videos as soon I finish each book! I’ll check back in after House of Chains thank you!!
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.
Part deux is required .... still so much to discuss ! The Bole family insist ;)
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.
Awesome convo. These disscussions enrich my experience of moving through the books. On the gruntle stoney issue , in all fairness to erikson, he calls this out in sonny's reaction after the battle. She says it was not OK for him to use her as his excuse.
Love these talks so much
Thank you, I am glad that you are enjoying them.
I found the discussion about Stonny and Gruntle so interesting. Just to throw in a female perspective (although I'm sure some will disagree), I was ok with it. I think if he had just found her immediately post assault and she was completely without agency and it was only him doing a revenge/ protection motivation, it would have bothered me more, but it's clear here that she got her revenge already. She was not a passive victim whose suffering only served his storyline. I found the moment so touching honestly, the way he looked after her but still respected her boundaries. He offered her a helping hand but did not force it. In terms of that rage then motivating him, I feel like that was really mirroring Buke's storyline of snapping out of your selfish misery when you realise the ones you love are suffering. I also get the sense that Gruntle and Stonny have a kind of mutual, not entirely platonic love for each other which may be possessive and somewhat unhealthy, but is also very realistic.
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!
I finished MoI at the weekend and absolutely loved it. I watched your talk because I hoped you'd answer two questions I was pondering about.
The first one, why Itkovian released the T'lan Imass right before the battle. You offered an answer to this, which I also vaguely thought of but couldn't fully accept - not because I would ever call it wrong, though. I think this is a plastic rendition of the "deontology vs consequentialism" ethical dilemma (a popular example would be the "trolley problem"). While Itkovian is a deontologist, who seems to believe that the goodness of an action should be determined by whether or not it is good based on a set of rules, regardless of what it actually leads to (in this case, Malazans slaughtered by the K'ell hunters). Those, on the other hand, who think he should have waited till the end of the battle at least, would probably argue that the judgement of the goodness of his action cannot disregard what it results in (saving or not saving the lives of hundreds (?) of fellow soldiers). Although there are exceptions, in most ethical dilemmas I find myself on the consequentialist side, so that's why I couldn't fully understand or agree with what Itkovian did. This might partly be due to the fact that as a human being I can't possibly imagine the depth of suffering the T'lan Imass went through. If I could (and, being the Shield Anvil, Itkovian may have been in such a position), I might do the same. Nonetheless, I found the building of his mound the most moving part of the book.
The second question you haven't touched upon and I am curious what you think about is why the Malazans rushed so to Coral. It exhausted the soldiers and separated their waves of attack, etc. and I don't see any real advantage they gained by it. They prevented the Pannion trap in the woods but.. is that all? Not being aware of the remaining K'ell hunters, they had thought it would be a relatively easy siege but Dujek is repeatedly emphasized to be a great commander - why take such an unnecessary risk?
As far as the comical scenes are concerned, my favorite bit was Gruntle and Toc's meeting at the end. Toc's asking what being a Mortal Sword was even about was hilarious.. :D
Thanks for your discussion, I am looking forward to listening to more. I truly appreciate how you actually discuss themes and motifs at length (as opposed the majority of book reviews, where the reviewer hardly goes beyond how they liked or disliked some characters and the book itself). Boy, do I miss the literary seminars at university..
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.
Started my reread of Gardens a few days ago. This makes me really want to go back to Memories.
I am glad that you enjoyed it. But no reason to rush GotM, plenty of time to read them all. 😊
Thanks for doing this talk you guys. It was a great way to decompress after I finished the book today.
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 fully agree with you both, that these discussions are the wonderful icing on the tremendous cake that are these books, and I look forward to them immensely after finishing each one.
One critique I wanted to offer was I think Korlat was done a disservice for much of the book. For most of MoI, she just serves the purpose of inflating Whiskeyjack and Anomander. Much of what she talks about is just how powerful and amazing these other characters are. I believe this gets corrected towards the end of her arc, we get much more of her and her interior, but it was close to being too little too late. That being said, the image of her broken underneath a weeping Moon's Spawn? Oof. My heart is beautifully broken once again.
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?
Made my day to see this video awaiting me.
Great stuff gents. One thing to add. Interesting commentary on Empires and previous descriptions of Malazans as rotting and corrupt and then to see the literal manifestation of that with the Pannions. But then there’s the conversation between Brrod, Rake, Kallor, etc when they realize that Dujek’s been lying about their “outlaw” status. Their conclusion is that the Malazans aren’t the worst thing ever and they have brought system of laws and trade and other positives to conquered lands and so they should just let Dujek’s betrayal slide. Reminds me of Life of Brian and that whole sequence around “what have the Romans done for us”.
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.
Amazing conversaton AP and Philip - just thanks so much for all this that you'vee done, I'm sure it's great fun, but it's such an overwhelming gift to us all.
Am curious about the Gruntle/Stonny thing - I totally agree with AP, I generally think Erickson handles these topics well, but does so with a little less care here... However curious (and it'll be a while) how Stonny's treatment in book 8 mitigates, helps, or hinders what happens in book 3? Torn on it myself, especially since it's so far out...
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 loved it. Thanks!!!!
I am very happy that you enjoyed it.
Man oh man. What a fantastic reading experience this third book was.
Gardens captured my imagination
Deadhouse put us on the
Historians shoulder to witness an epic pilgrimage. "i would have you see this historian."
-and that was just one of the arcs
This book 3 finale was a pleasure. The levels of satisfying closures were something more palpable. Had me smiling in my own silent reverence on the hill.
And of course, was I a bit confused at times? Yep!
Bht were more pieces of the great puzzle revealed? Yep!
If the first two books teetered on 5 star ratings, for whatever attempts to be precise, this one was a 6 star haha
Great chat
I'm glad that you loved the book, and pleased that you enjoyed the chat.
Finally finished this just moments ago, so where’s the first place I go? Right here.
Hi Matt, I am so pleased that these videos are interesting you, I hope that you are enjoying them too. Thanks for watching.
About the modern take on Gruntle's motivation because of Stonny, that happened to me in real life. Granted I graduated from college in 1990, so I would be part of the past era you speak of, but a female friend of the dorm, whom none of us dated, had that happen to her. There were about 20 of us combing the campus looking for this guy and it was very good in hindsight that the police found him first because it would not have turned out well for him and most likely us for what we probably would have done. I don't see how that would not be a motivation in this day and age. I didn't question that scene at all.
I definitely agree that thinking the paran and silverfox thing was creepy has got to be the most surface level read you could make. Going in I was like, ooh how is he going to handle this? And I thought he handled it very well, and not at all creepily.
I hope that you enjoy the rest of the discussion. Thanks for watching.
The real discussion is why there is no proper trade paperback release of this book🤔 The mass market paperback just can’t contain the awesomeness of this book.
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 .
Thrown book across the room...... Whiskeyjack!
I just finished MoI a few days ago, but had to muse on it for a good day or two afterwards. Itkovian's arc was powerful and for me hit the hardest. I joined the military in 1995 and am now retiring from it. I really think it is difficult for younger generations to understand the worldview of generations prior. For me, that old gruff NCO that is retiring after 25 years was a Vietnam vet. Now I am that guy. The world has changed drastically and so has society's view on social justice and gender norms. MoI was a fantastic book in my opinion. It hit all those cool fantasy things like the undead Dinos and such, but man, these arcs with the Mhybe, Silverfox, the I'mass and Itkovian....or even the Pannion Seer, just push this book (and series) to a whole other level. The humor also hits hard because of its contrast to these heavier themes.
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.
Easily the most violent and gore filled book of human suffering I have ever read.
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.
This Spoiler talks turned into an extra motivation to keep reading the book, guys. I'm starting House of Chains right now and I can't wait to end it and hear you talk about it 😃
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 come for the Malazan talk but stay for the Johnny Cash and Rolling Stones references.
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.
"Hark Kaminsod! Witness the Mystery Revelations from the Metaphysical Debate of Aeipi the Hibernian and Philippos of Yaankeey on the Passion of Itkovian the Mercifull, the Fall of Whiskey-o-jack by his Wounded Knee, the "It's complicated" remeeting of Silverfox the Reborned and Ganoes the Dragon Croupier and the further culinary adventures of Hammerhit Kruppe the Slimey!"
Ok, back in serious mode: Great discussion on the Pains of Motherhood, Pannion & Stonny! If you two fine folks need a Part Deux to cover more spoiler ground, by all means do so!
PS: That blasted Cabo line, AP, that blasted Cabo line....Now I have the mental image of Ganoes and Tattersail drunk & snogging in some Mexican bar, set to "The Pina Colada Song", stuck in my mind! ... Oh well... At least it is not set to "Margaritaville"...
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.
i'm a woman and absolutely hate rape being used as a motivator fora male character. However, in MOI I think this was handled well because stonny DOES call out gruntle on it-it's seen as a failing on his part instead of him being SUCH a hero for it.
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.
I’ve just finished the book last night and my eyes are so swollen it’s painful. I’ve never cried so much reading a book. The last 100 pages were a struggle.
I just want to add this because I see a lot of people making Itkovian the ultimate hero, but I was actually horrified and angry when he went to the Imass. So many people died because of his inability to wait or see beyond his compassion? It is still commendable but if he could have held off just a bit more- until the Hunters were dealt with, there would have been less slaughter. Honestly just one more hour.. could have saved so many lives.
But yeah, this books (and whole series so far) is a true masterpiece and I wish it were more widely known.
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
Also, do you have videos on all the other books? I just discovered your channel
If you check the playlist tab you should find the videos for each book.
Wish you wouldn’t have focused so much on the prologue that you’ve already covered, at length, in videos of their own. Otherwise, great video guys! I watch these types of videos after reading books to better understand what is actually going on and you have helped in that regard.
I will try harder next time.
I've just finished Memories of Ice, and the point about tayschren not being as much as a doosh as we thought he was, well it's interesting because our first impressions on him in GoTM really does set this fixed lens on the character, "this is how he is and I won't view him any other way" because of what he's done, and he is dislikeable in that book. I'm gonna talk about Night of Knives here so just skip this if you haven't read it.
The confusing thing to me was, I go ahead and read Night of Knives before MoI, and I'm seeing a version of this character that isn't what I thought he was. Sure he is strict to a degree but he shows of a kindness to Kiska that actually makes me like him a bit. And so I'm just going "well did something happen to this guy that he goes from a not total doosh to being one?" , then the revelation in this MoI about those moments in pale and it really does click and make sense.
Really I'm glad I read NoK before MoI because it gave a glimpse into tayschren that actually complemented his character in MoI, as confusing as it was to me at the time. Granted you have this conversation between him and laseen, and laseen basically said he's more concerned with himself than the empire, and it was a harsh sort of comment out of some spite it felt like, but maybe laseen does really think that, and it even has some merit, but tayschren actually risked himself and expended so much of his power to help in pushing back the stormriders, the much easier option would be just to abandon Malaz, but he chose to stay and fight, he also regretted allowing the decision laseen made to prohibit sorcery, which also has a big impact in the defence of Malaz.
One final thing I want to say which leads back to my first point is, when that conversation between Dujek and WJ takes place, and you're getting this information that tay wasn't really trying to destroy the bridgeburners, I was sceptical, similar to how WJ is sceptical as to if Dujek knew more about those events then he's letting off, which is reasonable. That's just how much tay in GoTM has an impact on the reader, even have seeing a softer side to tay in NoK, I still had scepticism if he sent the bridgeburners to their deaths or not, just because how he is in GoTM.
He never got to apologize to WJ, and he was waiting for "the right moment", I guess till after everything in coral was finished with, I wonder if he also regretted holding off that apology, similar to how WJ held off healing his leg, I don't know if that comes off as a similar type of stubbornness also, like "Oh I have to wait until this perfect moment" and if he genuinely wanted to make sure the apology was presented with what he thought might be the most meaning, something like that.
Gruntle’s transformation is signalled far ahead, it’s not a sudden change resulting from Stonny’s rape. His journey is mirrored by Buke, who was passed out drunk while his family died. Gruntle is stuck not saying or acting when he could - he wants to protect Stonny as a captain, not just as a man.
He has to collect her from a binge at the start, and later she is ranging too far ahead of the caravan. He knows instinctively he should reel her in some, but he doesn’t do enough. He’s also trying to draw out Buke’s self-forgiveness, because he knows he is likely to fall into the same trap as Buke, and he needs to know there is redemption.
His embrace of unconsciousness, of inaction, has bottled up his instinct and it erupts. He’s like a caged animal, a tiger.
Perhaps it still could have been unravelled differently, but it has an inevitability to it. Along with the need for Stonny to (*spoiler*) become a rejecting mother, it makes sense.
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’m a father of six. I know the life of servitude and drain very well. It’s all worthwhile, but yes it can take a toll.
So you went to bed, slept, woke up, and talked for a couple hours more right? 😅
Such a good long conversation about this awesome book, and barely a mention of Bauchelain if any 🙄 clearly the star of the show
But seriously, great talk! Glad you touched on the relationship between Ganoes and Tattersail/Silverfox. The criticism of 'badly written relationships' comes up, a lot. And while I can see where it's coming from, I disagree completely. It just requires a bit more digging, a bit more empathy - the relationships aren't built up from the ground and spoonfed, just as nothing is in these books.
The theme of motherhood is handled fantastically here, and will come back in later books and Kharkanas.
The Mhybe suffering in silence (of a sort), and Silverfox herself working in secret to bring solace to her mother and be worthy of her sacrifice 💔 heartbreaking.
The criticism about Gruntle finding motivation in Stonny - I think you're right. It didn't bother me at the time, and I think Erikson would avoid it now. It has become a trope filled with negativity. But in this case, it still does not bother me today. For one thing, I buy Gruntle's arc. But much more importantly, Stonny's side is handled great as well - and that's precisely the problem most times this trope comes up.
Already looking forward to House of Chains!
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.
Just recently finished this book (loved it) and I'm just confused about one thing.
Did we get any clues that Artanthos was really Tayschrenn?
Oh man decimate gets me too.
Most cases of language usage evolution pass me by, but decimate and literally are two that... Nope... Can't let it go.
😂😂😂
You have this thing with how other imass view onos toolan, the first sword, like when envy was talking to lanas tog, and they sort of talked about how tool is just different from the rest of the imass to which she replies "he is the first sword" , I think the 2 times this happens in their conversation is, him disagreeing with the ritual and also him having a sense of humour. So the reasoning they use for tool differing is him being the first sword, and perhaps this stems from the original thing of him not wanting to forego the ritual.
The moment when we see tool again, as a mortal, was a sort of bitter sweet moment for me, because you can't help but feel happy for tool, since he's smiling when he walks up to toc to check if he's alright, and toc can't recognise him, and tool says he'll always keep him in his memory 💔 . Tool is different in that he never had his suffering taken away by itkovian, becomes mortal, which might even awaken or enliven the memories he had when he was alive, i dont even know, and yet he can STILL smile, and find reasons to be happy, he had even just lost to mok pretty much, and it's even that acceptance with that, from before when he was saying he can't have an equal, which was also kind of saddening to see. I think if someone when to lanas tog and asked her why is onos toolan able to smile despite all these things she'd just shrug and go "😐 he is the mortal sword" tool is simply built different.
there's also a sort of counter point in my head where perhaps becoming mortal is precisely what allows him to express himself like that in the first place, similar to when korlat finally wept tears from WJ heart, I think it was from caladans pov, but it's mentioned how korlat's stone heart became mortal, something like that, and even another scene when she's flying with her brother, and her brother tells says how the tiiste andii don't have the gift of grieving, so she should go to the "mortal" plain and weep. "Mother Dark, but these mortals live!"
Im 15% percent into the book. Its a bit hard to follow early because it keeps jumping pov’s around. Do you feel that there is some Wheel of Time influences here with Setoc and the wolves?
Wolves in fantasy, and wolves in mythology go much further back than Wheel of Time. Romulus and Remus, Odin's Wolves, the Norse Fenrir, Zoroastrian legend, not to mention the multiple Native American stories involving wolf spirits, and the European legends of berserkers wearing wolfskins, even The Jungle Book.
Additionally, Erikson hasn't read The Wheel of Time... I think he may have read the first book, but I am not sure of that, but I am fairly sure he hasn't read the series.
Last comment, did we ever figure out why Korlat shifted the truth a bit about when discussing when it was that Whiskeyjack’s leg broke?
She insisted it broke after he was killed, but we know it didn’t.
Was she trying to keep the folks who could have healed him from feeling guilt?
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.
Coltaine's sacrifice really made me feel and love Malazan after all the confusion in GotM. But Memories of Ice was even better, the sheer crudeness of the pannions eating everyone away, Gruntle leading a rebellion out of nothing, Wiskeyjack and the marine's death, the "first in, last out" part, the Mhybe's suffering.. But nothing compared to Itkovian's noble sacrifice, that was up there with Coltaine. Great video, it cleared out some confusion I had. Still don't agree with the Gruntle part, he didn't care for the war but entered it because his friend got raped and took out his whole potential. I think if we had the strength we would all do the same
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.
I really was confused about Paran's obsession with Tattersail already in Gardens of the Moon tbh. They knew each other for a week or so and had one fling and somehow Paran talked about her like they were married for years I never understood it
I can't see how there's any way that Kruppe is a mortal. I suspect he is an elder god. I heard Erikson say in a interview that he was the most powerful.
Malazan is a strange, wonderful, and complex world.
Just an aside here: I notice at least four of the Subterranean editions in the background, there are probably more. In other words: thousands and thousands of dollars worth of books… 😳
Considering you made a 20 minute video on 2 pages it is hard to cover 1200 pages before nighty night. But that just means more for later.
But as another fan of wordplay with some similar pet peeves who listened to George Carlin before I probably should have, you have added decimate/devastate to the list.
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.
Hi AP. Been thinking about MOI alot today and came back to this video. Mostly about Itkovian and Whiskeyjack. What you said about Itkovian doing the right thing as to the convenient thing really hit home today. The scene with Itkovian and the Imass and the execution with Whiskeyjack and Rake have been on my mind today. How Rake wants to spare Whiskeyjack the burden of killing the Women of the Dead Seed and he mistakes his intentions.
Ok.... deep breath.
I had to put my dog of 13 years down today.
He, as it turns out, had stomach cancer and couldn't eat and drink properly anymore. I didn't know that until today. The veterinarian told me my options, one of which being I could put him on pain meds and spend more time with him and watch him die of thirst or to put him to sleep. Part of me wanted so badly just to keep him as long as I could. I knew he was suffering but still didn't want to let go.
I took a deep breath and called my wife to come down. We talked and I signed the papers to end my friends life.
Later this day, the guilt I felt was overwhelming. I told this to my wife and she said that she had wished that she had signed to take the burden off of me.
I immediately thought of MOI and was comforted. Steve was preparing me for this moment. He obviously didn't intend that. I didn't know that I would need it.
Please thank him for me when you talk with him next. It has been a horrible day and Steve has helped me to limp through it.
Going to read the Itkovian scene and cry and go to bed.
Thanks AP.
P. S. He was a good dog. I wish that I could have been his Gesler.
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.
two men talking about motherhood....
gotta love that lmao
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.
Ngl when I heard that Tayschrenn was trying to save the Bridgeburners and A'Karonys was killed by Nightchill and she died cuz she betrayed them and not that Tayschrenn was the betrayer and he later on did his best in the battle at Coral he instantly became for me not a favorite exactly but I really like him now
So do you think that the ‘betrayal’ that killed Nightchill (per Kallor’s curse) was not someone betraying her, but rather HER betrayal of killing that other mage (A’kronys)
Yup. She betrayed the other Malazan mages.
You have to think Kallor had attained a good amount of power already. I mean he did curse Elder Gods after all
Yeah, but don't we all curse elder gods? 🤣🤣
@@ACriticalDragon touché
Thanks for you insightful comments! My problem with the Malazan novels is - as much as I like them - that death (very often) has no consequences, which takes away from the emotional impact of a lot of scenes, because I always expect a "dead" character to crop up again some chapter (or novels) later. A good example here is Duiker - one of my favourite characters. But how much more gripping and sad would it have been, if he had actually died.
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.
I swear, switching sides and I thought AP was Philip for like 30 seconds.
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. :)
i very much disagreewith the gruntle/stoneycritique - IMO the 'call to arms is not because she got raped but because a friend got violated... and gruntle is very much hot iron, his response is totally logical - also the moment we are no longer supposed to act when friends and loved ones gets violated we should disband society because we have failed as a civilazation.
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.
Hi AP I have given it a lot of thought about Gruntles reaction to what happened to stonny and I dont think Erickson could of written any think different that would believable to how he reacted unless he actually killed her off, and we have moved on in the last 20 yrs but maybe only in the fact on how we are told how we should feel and what is appropriate, but ultimately rightly or wrongly I think men on whole still feel the need to be protective of women and probably always will probably going back to our cave man times :) . We only have to look as what Liam Neeson said in his interview on what happened to his friend and the thoughts that went through his head and his honestly has probably damaged his career! And we also know that Gruntle is very much anti war anti army and this is reforces even more in Cripled God when he is with kilva so for him to react the way he did had to be something big and personal.
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 think the fridge trope is more egregious when the female's only purpose in the story is as an adventure hook for a male. Stonny has imo a great part leading up to and for the rest of her time on the pages. It is a bit of a girlfriend in the fridge but, it's a slight one to me.
I agree.
I thought that it was worth mentioning though.
50% of the book I can't see this video 😭😭
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.
Sleep as you will, but, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing stopping you from making an additional, or multiple, spoiler recaps. Thanks to you both for another great discussion! And further thanks to you, AP, for raising the spectre of 'fridging' with Stonny. I'm also currently re-reading the series, about 2/3rds of the way through MoI, and that stood out to me this time around as well. Its presence here isn't as egregious as other instances that I've seen, but it is still worth identifying it as such. I also agree that Erikson, if he were writing it today, may have gone about it differently. At the same time, I also wonder if he was intentionally calling it out. While I don't think fridging had been coined back in 2000, the concept of 'man spurned into action after his significant other has been raped/injured/killed' has been around for awhile.
Either way, thanks to you both again for the video!
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. 😊😊😊
Damn. I have to wait and read MOI before I view this. That’s disappointing
The video will be here for when you are done. It is a great book, and I hope that you enjoy reading it.
Whenever I hear someone say “subvert our expectations”
I cringe at the memory of Star Wars The Last Jedi
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.
Why would you retroactively criticize Erikson's writing just because fridging became more rampant in the modern day? Wasn't his fault. What does one gain from that?
"From a modern perspective"
Good thing this wasn't written in the current year!
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.
What is the problem with Gruntle responding to a friend getting hurt? Get over it Christ…. It didn’t even register with me, I just saw someone responding to a friend getting hurt, I didn’t focus on the rape. So much time spent on that…. “I don’t blow this out of proportion” and then speaks about it for 5 minutes.
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.
Well, I hate Kallor, I hate Silverfox, I hate Tayschrenn... so there's no conflict of negative interest here. 😁 And I think I dislike them so because they feel like wasted characters with unaccomplished potential, at the level of the entire series.
I'm feeling a bit terrible because as a woman (but not a mother), I have almost no sympathy/empathy with the Mhybe. I might have if the monumental miscommunication between characters in her arc hadn't been dragged beyond the point of ridicule. And if much more interesting story lines weren't interrupted with the same, endlessly recycled pity party. It dragged on forever and completely lost its poignancy.
As for Gruntle and Stonny... I didn't read it as Gruntle went tiger on the Panions just to avenge Stonny. To me it was the partially eaten child. That standard they raised and slaughtered under was the motivation.
Luckily Kallor, Tayschrenn, and Silverfox all continue to appear in the Malazan books, especially Esslemont's, so their story arcs are really just beginning. 😊
Spoiler alert.
Spoiler alert
SPOILERS COMING
I hated Tayshrenn. I wanted to keep hating him. He eventually becomes T'Shrenn. When D'rek is failing.
He takes drek's place and if you see burn as earth wu or terra firma, I think D'rek is the two innermost layers of the planet.
The molten core of earth spins one way and the penultimate layer spins contrary. This is what creates the Dynamo, which creates the magnetic field which protects the planet from cosmic radiation which would wipe life of the planet
Im going to say something highly unpopular. Itkovian s Arc does NOT sit well with me. Not because of the timing, not because of deserving or not of compassion. What I dont like is the whole Idea that one person can magically attone for another, that is far too christian like for my taste.
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.
Thanks so much for this. I just finished this last night and I love watching these because it helps me get more insight and maybe clarify a few things I missed or didn’t quite grasp.
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.