• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gormenghast

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

3,627 profile views
  1. It seems plans are going to shit for him too: Late summer would be 41 months.
  2. The fun thing is that Alan Moore's "behemoth" comes out the month it is BLOWN AWAY by another behemoth that truly deserves that word and is exponentially bigger and more completely batshit absurd compared to it: Sizes: 14x10.8 inches, 1496 pages, 13 pounds http://i.imgur.com/VrzfgV1.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsqP91LXYAA-TU6.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrSQO2RUMAAGwGF.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrPecAIUIAA4Y6q.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrPecAdVYAACBgE.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrPecAaVMAMbd3Y.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqeYtZmUAAAcrg7.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsaZR-_XYAAy8Eh.jpg:large I have both on the way.
  3. Btw, I went back a few pages and found out about this "Madness" mess and, yeah, he's so very likely lying. Besides, I followed most if not all the updates Bakker was giving along the years, sometimes buried in the comments of his blog, and the split in two was a very recent thing. A good sign Madness is very likely lying is that I actually remembered I was discussing the SAME thing on those forums over there. Look at this: http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=1362.msg16876#msg16876 "I definitely voiced the thought that it would benefit from being split up into two books." "As far as I recall, TAE long ago was only going to be two books. I remember Bakker commenting following both publications of TJE and WLW and suggesting that in each case he had simply lined up the threads as best he could and chopped them off at what he thought were suitable cliffhangers. I suppose he'll manage something like that again, if he has too. It seems to have worked out for him so far, in my opinion." So he was discussing, with Bakker, of the possibility of splitting ***TGO*** in two? What?! Either he lies now or was lying in 2014 (why?). And when you have a guy who openly admits he's just trolling then it automatically means that EVERYTHING he says turns to ashes. He's not reliable. That's all. That said, everything I remember reading from Bakker updates in the comments is that the book was written, and completed, as one book. Still, he worried it would be split. Was waiting for the publisher to come up with a plan. Eventually he reworked the manuscript and in the last few months he was busy again completing the glossary that would be in TUC, along with polishing the manuscript. It doesn't seem that TGO didn't go through any further editing after the publisher assigned him an editor. Of course he still had to work on it to adapt it for the split to happen.
  4. I was following up on this:
  5. For the record, I got my copy and a pretty accurate estimation is that The Great Ordeal is around 161k words. That would make The Unholy Consult somewhere around 140k, to match the 300k we were given, the exact same size of The Thousandfold Thought. This also matches the idea that The Unholy Consult would be some 400 pages + 200 pages of the extended glossary, since 400 pages in the format they use is indeed equal to 140k. Still, it's a bit "small" last chunk, and hopefully it doesn't lose too much of the impact for having been split.
  6. I don't know Bakker-verse, but recursion observed speaks more about how the brain works, than how reality does. What I mean is that, because of how we think, we tend to observe outside just the "quality" that makes us. As if: you can only observe what you are built to observe, and are blind to everything else. But again, it works as self-description, but doesn't truly help to know what's actually out there. It's a description of reality as it is anthropomorphized, but it isn't a proof or a guarantee that reality is truly anthropomorphic.
  7. Yes, but he never said he already started writing that. So I don't think we can even hope it will be soon, as in a couple of years. I always considered it as something pushed some years in the future.
  8. Is he even writing it? I thought he doesn't even have a deal with the publisher. I was assuming he was going to wait to see the sales and then figure out a deal to make. And then maybe start working on what comes next if the conditions are good enough. As far as I know he's currently busy with other stuff.
  9. But beside the snark and not wanting to engage, I think Bakker confirmed the same idea: reads to me like: "that's how I write, it's a deliberate choice. Some people don't like that, but complaining about breaking some sort of canon is silly." You can as well read "scriptural" as "preachy". It doesn't seem to me Bakker denies this. But of course he says it's not a mistake about slipping out of PoV, it's instead about the book being written just in a different style. You can of course prefer a more traditional one, and even have good reasons for that, but that's the nature of Bakker's work. And even what sets it apart.
  10. I mean, Book 1, first line of the Prologue: "One cannot raise walls against what has been forgotten." Who is thinking this? No one. First Chapter: "All spies obsessed over their informants. It was a game they played in the moments before sleep or even during nervous gaps in conversation. A spy would look at his informant, as Achamian looked at Geshrunni now, and ask himself, How much does he know?" Even here it's not Achamian who's consciously thinking that. It's third person again. Achamian DOES that, he obsesses over his informant, but he doesn't think about obsession to hand exposition to the reader. It just doesn't seem to me Bakker is using the third person limited the way Martin would. Those do not seem "slips". It's just written differently.
  11. But it does belong to that particular moment. The way I read it, it's just a third person explanation of the action of a character. It's not expression of what the character is thinking. Those two lines PRECEDE what Esme thinks, they aren't part of her conscious thought. I take those as third person, detached from the character. I'm curious about what Bakker thinks, and thought. In any case the third person limited is not an hard rule. We just assume it is. Breaking it might be either a mistake, or deliberate. My interpretation is that it's deliberate.
  12. I don't even see it as a "timing" problem. That's definitely third person out-of-character. So for me the discussion is whether or not it is deliberate. And, if we say it's deliberate, why it's really a problem. The two things are at odds, indeed. You give priority to the raw emotion, but maybe that wasn't the actual point. If Martin wrote that scene you'd be right. That's what Martin writes about and how he would structure that scene. But I just don't think Bakker's narrative focus and intent is that one. In that case it wouldn't be a "slip". There are things bubbling up in Bakker's prose, and those things are more important, if not completely revealed, then the explicit plot and immediate actions. There are indeed two voices overlapping.
  13. Well, this is interesting. So you'd ask Bakker to be exactly like Martin There's definitely a marked slip into third person and I'm really curious what Bakker would think about this specifically, because I'm convinced it's deliberate and not actually a "slip". Self-awareness is the thing I like the most, so the fact Bakker writes differently from Martin for me is a big advantage, but it would be interesting to discuss with the writers themselves. I just don't believe they don't "notice" it.
  14. So... I was checking the Man Booker International, reading straight from Amazon preview since this "book" barely qualifies as a novel, at 51k words. So you can essentially finish it in a couple of hours and read the majority of it through that preview. It has the longest list of cover blurbs in history, I guess that's because being so short it feels like free money for minimal work. I'm 20 pages in, and that's like >10% of the book. Quality of writing is just one notch BELOW Fifty Shades of Grey. Is this real? Maybe it's a joke I'm not getting, but I encourage everyone to take a read at the Amazon preview.
  15. So, while elsewhere I use to sing praises to Erikson I'm also one of the rare cases of readers thinking Erikson is not good at worldbuilding at all (or at least not specifically remarkable for that). In fact I'm always contrary to ideas such as making an RPG with the setting or some encyclopedia. It just wouldn't work. The problem is Erikson has a terse style of writing and there's very little space left to flashing out all the aspects that correspond to good worldbuilding. I'll probably write more about this when I write my review of The Bonehunters, but the way Erikson strings events and scenes, the fragmentary constant cycling of PoVs, they all lead to a lackluster feeling of a believable, solid, alternative world that continues to exist even when you're not looking. (besides, above I read about "aspects of daily life", in Malazan there's essentially NONE of it) For me Martin excels at that, and he excels specifically because he has a rich style of writing, with flowing descriptions that help sinking in the fictional world and immersion. And because dialogue and characters are so natural, the resulting picture is the most believable out of any other writer I can think of. Besides, Martin obsesses over details. The world and characters continue to exist off the page. The only problem with Martin is that he writes mostly historical fiction that was slightly warped to look like fantasy, so as an exercise in invention and creativity it's fairly poor, and that would be an area where Malazan wins and hits it out of the park. Janny Wurts main series is also excellent. Jordan I guess is another with a rich style of writing, though the overall worldbuilding is fairly questionable. Sanderson does interesting things too, even if a bit "plain" as everything else. Bakker is, I don't know, very limited in scope, but what he does he does exceptionally well. But still, it's not the worldbuilding the reason why you'd read his books.