Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[Myshkin]

I honestly don't understand how people can use "Erikson is not afraid to kill off characters" as a plus. It becomes obvious fairly early on (about half way through book one) that death is not a permanent thing in Erikson's world. In fact, death is not always a bad thing in Erikson's world: it seems to be his favorite way to "level up" his characters. Plus there's they fact that after the first two or three resurrections you stop believing Erikson:

SPOILER: Death Scenes

When he killed Whiskeyjack in MoI I felt nothing. The death scene had absolutely no power. Why? Because at that point I was 100% certain that ol' Whiskeyjack was gonna be resurrected, and in fact come back bigger and badder than ever before. Now Whiskeyjack never was resurrected, but that doesn't change the fact that his death scene lacked any type of emotional potency for the readers at the time.

[Arakasi]

Oh you'd get plenty of disagreement on that one.

SPOILER: Deaths

There were plenty of people who cheered when WJ died. LOL. I can think of a number of people on this board who had that reaction. More seriously I don't think one can really state that. At that point Erikson hadn't even gone much into the resurrection thing. Most people I've read talk about the series were emotionally hit by either WJ or Itkovian dying, if not both. The fact that you didn't care about it just meant that you had emotionally bought your way out of the series by then.

[Joanna vander Poele]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563275' date='Oct 21 2008, 16.43']Oh you'd get plenty of disagreement on that one.

SPOILER: Deaths

There were plenty of people who cheered when WJ died. LOL. I can think of a number of people on this board who had that reaction. More seriously I don't think one can really state that. At that point Erikson hadn't even gone much into the resurrection thing. Most people I've read talk about the series were emotionally hit by either WJ or Itkovian dying, if not both. The fact that you didn't care about it just meant that you had emotionally bought your way out of the series by then.

[/quote]

SPOILER: death

Or maybe he was never sold to begin with? :dunno:

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563275' date='Oct 21 2008, 16.43']Oh you'd get plenty of disagreement on that one.

SPOILER: Deaths

There were plenty of people who cheered when WJ died. LOL. I can think of a number of people on this board who had that reaction. More seriously I don't think one can really state that. At that point Erikson hadn't even gone much into the resurrection thing. Most people I've read talk about the series were emotionally hit by either WJ or Itkovian dying, if not both. The fact that you didn't care about it just meant that you had emotionally bought your way out of the series by then.

[/quote]

I'll have to disagree with you:

SPOILER: Death

By that time Hairlock, Paran, and Tattersail had all been killed and resurrected. Not to mention the strong indication that Dancer and Kellanved had become gods by dieing. And right about the same time as Whiskeyjack's death Toc the Younger was killed and resurrected. With all these resurrections how could I be expected to believe that Whiskeyjack's death was final?

ETA: I almost forgot about all those child wizards with Coltain, every one of which was the resurrected soul of a wizard who'd been killed earlier. And the strong hint that Coltain himself was reborn into the body of an infant.

[Arakasi]

SPOILER: death

Paran and Hairlock umm were not killed and resurrected. Tattersail sure was, but as an utterly different being. Paran was the typical fantasy near death experience, and Hairlock was turned into something else before he ever died. Toc also was not killed and resurrected, well at least not until the end of MoI. He got thrown into a void in GotM and in MoI we found where he ended up.

I do agree there is plenty of cases in the series of people dying and then being rezed. Toc at the end of MoI, Brys in RG and some of how the Bridgeburners have been handled (Hedge) would count. Coltaine's soul got reborn and how Tattersail's death was handled is an example of how someone who died lived on in a Karmic sense.

But Toc in GotM, Paran in GotM, Hairlock in GotM well they never died. So why you would use them as an example of resurrections when there are several legit examples to call on puzzles me. They were just near death experiences, which we see a lot of in fantasy worlds.

For me I'm fine with things like ascendence. It's pretty clear that Dancer and Kallanved were never killed, as was shown in NoK. Tattersail and Silverfox are so utterly different its hard to compare them. As would be Coltaine and the child he was reborn in. Which leaves Brys, Toc (from MoI to RG), Hedge and maybe Duiker. Duiker is a shattered physical/emotional wreck and is much different than what he was, plus he's been in all of 10 pages since. He didn't bother me. Toc was odd, why bring him back only to have him actually killed for good in RG? Hedge was sort of weird, not back but not fully dead. Brys to me was my biggest one, since he seemed to come back with no repercussions.

[Shryke]

That, and tons of people were sad when

SPOILER: ZOMG SPOILER

Wiskeyjack

died. I don't know wtf your talking about when you say people weren't.

[Werthead]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1563270' date='Oct 22 2008, 00.35']I honestly don't understand how people can use "Erikson is not afraid to kill off characters" as a plus. It becomes obvious fairly early on (about half way through book one) that death is not a permanent thing in Erikson's world. In fact, death is not always a bad thing in Erikson's world: it seems to be his favorite way to "level up" his characters. Plus there's they fact that after the first two or three resurrections you stop believing Erikson:[/quote]

Erm...

SPOILER: TTH & RotCG

So it's probably not helpful to reveal at this poin that Whiskeyjack's ghost makes a cameo appearance in the latest book? And Coltaine Reborn appears briefly as an infant in [i]Crimson Guard?[/i]

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563290' date='Oct 21 2008, 17.19']

SPOILER: death

Paran and Hairlock umm were not killed and resurrected. Tattersail sure was, but as an utterly different being. Paran was the typical fantasy near death experience, and Hairlock was turned into something else before he ever died. Toc also was not killed and resurrected, well at least not until the end of MoI. He got thrown into a void in GotM and in MoI we found where he ended up.

I do agree there is plenty of cases in the series of people dying and then being rezed. Toc at the end of MoI, Brys in RG and some of how the Bridgeburners have been handled (Hedge) would count. Coltaine's soul got reborn and how Tattersail's death was handled is an example of how someone who died lived on in a Karmic sense.

But Toc in GotM, Paran in GotM, Hairlock in GotM well they never died. So why you would use them as an example of resurrections when there are several legit examples to call on puzzles me. They were just near death experiences, which we see a lot of in fantasy worlds.

For me I'm fine with things like ascendence. It's pretty clear that Dancer and Kallanved were never killed, as was shown in NoK. Tattersail and Silverfox are so utterly different its hard to compare them. As would be Coltaine and the child he was reborn in. Which leaves Brys, Toc (from MoI to RG), Hedge and maybe Duiker. Duiker is a shattered physical/emotional wreck and is much different than what he was, plus he's been in all of 10 pages since. He didn't bother me. Toc was odd, why bring him back only to have him actually killed for good in RG? Hedge was sort of weird, not back but not fully dead. Brys to me was my biggest one, since he seemed to come back with no repercussions.

[/quote]

SPOILER: death

Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes resurrection in a literary sense. I guess Hairlock and Paran didn't actually die, but both would have certainly died if they hadn't had "divine" (or super-magical) intervention (besides I'm pretty sure Paran did actually die, but his soul hadn't yet crossed through Hood's gate). For me a death scene is completely robbed of its power if A) A character "dies" but you are told that s/he will live again (such as Coltaine), B) a character "dies" but you come to find out later that s/he manages to somehow switch bodies right before s/he "died" (Hairlock, Toc), or C) a character "dies" but is still sentient and corporeal, and still manages to play a physical part in the story (Bridgeburners, Rulad). Furthermore, since there are so many characters who fit one of those three categories to me [i]all[/i] death scenes lose power because there is such a strong possibility that the person who "died" can and very well might be brought back to life. This is further evinced by the fact that there was such a long period (page wise) between Byrs' "death" and resurrection.

[EHK for Darwin]

Erickson couldn't hold Martin's jock strap. And that's about all I have to say on that.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1563292' date='Oct 21 2008, 17.25']That, and tons of people were sad when

SPOILER: ZOMG SPOILER

Wiskeyjack

died. I don't know wtf your talking about when you say people weren't.[/quote]
So I guess I'm the only one who has trouble believing Erikson when he kills a character? Despite all the evidence that he can and might bring them back? Am I the only one who believes that an author who continually uses death to make an emotional impact on his readers and then later reveals that those deaths weren't for real risks breaking trust with his readers?

[quote name='Werthead' post='1563296' date='Oct 21 2008, 17.34']Erm...

SPOILER: TTH & RotCG

So it's probably not helpful to reveal at this poin that Whiskeyjack's ghost makes a cameo appearance in the latest book? And Coltaine Reborn appears briefly as an infant in [i]Crimson Guard?[/i]

[/quote]
Well then, that's interesting.

[polishgenius]

You're really not - the TtH spoilers Wert mentioned were a massive disappointment to me. Plus

SPOILER: TtH

Toc the Younger shows up again.

It's easily Erikson's biggest flaw for me. One or two I didn't mind, particularly the ones where the bringing back happened or was implied straight away, but now only two of my favourite Erikson death scenes remain without the character involved showing up in some form after said scene.

I don't know why, but I get the feeling that ICE will be more consistent. He just seems to have a better feel for that kind of thing.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1563308' date='Oct 21 2008, 21.00']So I guess I'm the only one who has trouble believing Erikson when he kills a character? Despite all the evidence that he can and might bring them back? Am I the only one who believes that an author who continually uses death to make an emotional impact on his readers and then later reveals that those deaths weren't for real risks breaking trust with his readers?[/quote]

Not one of the only ones, but certainly not everyone.

And at that point in the series, I think you'd be one of the few. The ressurections were almost non-existant at that point

SPOILER: deaths

Since your the first person I've heard who counts Hairlock or Toc.

Which leaves it at Tattersail (who only kidna comes back and is not the same at all), Coltaine (reincarnation doesn't count for much) and Paran (the only real ressurection at that point).

Oh, and Duiker. I suppose that's 2.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1563310' date='Oct 21 2008, 18.10']Not one of the only ones, but certainly not everyone.

And at that point in the series, I think you'd be one of the few. The ressurections were almost non-existant at that point

SPOILER: deaths

Since your the first person I've heard who counts Hairlock or Toc.

Which leaves it at Tattersail (who only kidna comes back and is not the same at all), Coltaine (reincarnation doesn't count for much) and Paran (the only real ressurection at that point).

Oh, and Duiker. I suppose that's 2.

[/quote]

SPOILER: Death

I didn't count Toc as happening before Whiskeyjack (i.e. the falling through the warren thing), I said he died and was resurrected just after the Whiskeyjack death, which further hints that Whiskeyjack might come back, and robs the death scene of power. Surely its ok to count Toc as a resurrection after the events of MoI, isn't it? As for Coltaine, the very fact that we are told that he will live again, even if he no longer plays a part in the story, serves to limit the impact of his death. It no longer feels as if he died, it feels more like he got on a ship and sailed away.

[Arakasi]

So I'm guessing that Buddhism or other forms of religion that believe in reincarnation shouldn't feel sadness or loss when people die, even though according to the tenants of their religion they will be reborn as someone else, different body and mind perhaps, but same soul.

SPOILER: death

Since that pretty much explains Coltaine. It's just the same soul, it doesn't mean he will grow up to act, speak and talk like Coltaine. Also the Tattersail one, which I think was well done, mainly because Silverfox is just so unsympathetic and very different to Tattersail.

I would agree the Toc one was odd, and so was Brys. Hedge and WJ have both appeared, but basically as ghosts and in WJ's case only for a very short time. Was kind of a cameo experience. Brys to me is the one that bothers me most, since I didn't see his character change that much from what happened. Toc did change a lot, but Erikson did a wtf moment by bringing a guy back to life (and he did have a near death moment in GotM) only to brutally kill him in RG.

The point is that reincarnation and ascendence is part of the Malazan world, at least in the form of people ascending and some magical conjurings.

SPOILER: more clarification

Basically people ascending like the Emp/Dancer, or stuff like Hairlock, Tattersail, Coltaine or others make sense within the laws set down. So for that matter does the fate of the bridgeburners.

However to me that doesn't hold true for Brys. He's not an ascendent and I don't think he should have been brought back. Toc you could argue might fit in under the ascendent part and might be more annoying to me if not for Erikson brutally killing the guy halfway through the next book he was in. So if you want to blame him for bringing Toc back as a cheap ploy or whatnot you need to give him credit for then brutally wacking the guy off

[Shryke]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1563318' date='Oct 21 2008, 21.27']

SPOILER: Death

I didn't count Toc as happening before Whiskeyjack (i.e. the falling through the warren thing), I said he died and was resurrected just after the Whiskeyjack death, which further hints that Whiskeyjack might come back, and robs the death scene of power. Surely its ok to count Toc as a resurrection after the events of MoI, isn't it? As for Coltaine, the very fact that we are told that he will live again, even if he no longer plays a part in the story, serves to limit the impact of his death. It no longer feels as if he died, it feels more like he got on a ship and sailed away.

[/quote]

Maybe for you.

[Gormenghast]

[quote]The point is that reincarnation and ascendence is part of the Malazan world[/quote]
nope, they classified it already categorically as D&D leveling up, so it's not worth arguing.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563332' date='Oct 21 2008, 18.52']So I'm guessing that Buddhism or other forms of religion that believe in reincarnation shouldn't feel sadness or loss when people die, even though according to the tenants of their religion they will be reborn as someone else, different body and mind perhaps, but same soul.[/quote]
This is both ridiculous and offensive. We are talking about a work of fiction, not a religion. We are talking about trust in an author, and how an author who constantly negates what he previously used to draw out an emotional reaction risks breaking said trust. Furthermore we are talking about how the [i]reader[/i] reacts to these things, and not how the [i]characters[/i] react, making your point moot since it is a false analogy.

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563332' date='Oct 21 2008, 18.52']

SPOILER: death

Since that pretty much explains Coltaine. It's just the same soul, it doesn't mean he will grow up to act, speak and talk like Coltaine. Also the Tattersail one, which I think was well done, mainly because Silverfox is just so unsympathetic and very different to Tattersail.

[/quote]

SPOILER: death

Does the text explicitly say this, or is that just how you choose to read it? If I recall correctly, and I might not since it's been a while, the child wizards showed a lot in common with those dead wizards who they were reincarnations of. Furthermore, what would be the point of actively casting a spell (do you see how this is different than Buddhism or Hinduism?) to reincarnate Coltaine if said reincarnation had nothing in common with the old Coltaine? Why do it?

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563332' date='Oct 21 2008, 18.52']The point is that reincarnation and ascendence is part of the Malazan world, at least in the form of people ascending and some magical conjurings.

SPOILER: more clarification

Basically people ascending like the Emp/Dancer, or stuff like Hairlock, Tattersail, Coltaine or others make sense within the laws set down. So for that matter does the fate of the bridgeburners.

[/quote]
And my point being that this "part of the Malazan world" risks dampening the emotional power of future death scenes, and risks breaking trust with the reader.

[Arakasi]

Who is they in what you mean as classifying it as levelling up? Regardless of whether ascendancy is a mechanism for leveling up that carried over from their role playing days, the point is that the idea is part of the world they've created. As long as they hold to that than it is fine.

Basically an author for a fantasy series needs to set some rules. If they go breaking those rules all the time than its going to be disjointed. Now I agree Erikson and Esselmont have broken the timeline, and broken it in some cases pretty badly. But for the world and how it works, that's been pretty stable. The one wtf moment that never came back again was Tool's field of anti magic in book 1.

[Arakasi]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1563388' date='Oct 21 2008, 22.39']This is both ridiculous and offensive. We are talking about a work of fiction, not a religion. We are talking about trust in an author, and how an author who constantly negates what he previously used to draw out an emotional reaction risks breaking said trust. Furthermore we are talking about how the [i]reader[/i] reacts to these things, and not how the [i]characters[/i] react, making your point moot since it is a false analogy.

SPOILER: death

Does the text explicitly say this, or is that just how you choose to read it? If I recall correctly, and I might not since it's been a while, the child wizards showed a lot in common with those dead wizards who they were reincarnations of. Furthermore, what would be the point of actively casting a spell (do you see how this is different than Buddhism or Hinduism?) to reincarnate Coltaine if said reincarnation had nothing in common with the old Coltaine? Why do it?

And my point being that this "part of the Malazan world" risks dampening the emotional power of future death scenes, and risks breaking trust with the reader.[/quote]

And you're making a generalization about that since it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work at all. Shryke already posted, and I've read plenty of other people who enjoy the books and felt emotional impact. It's just odd since the end of MoI (with Itkovian) is something I've almost never seen people say had no emotional impact, and thats even from people who don't like the series much or stopped liking it. My point is the permanence of death doesn't have to affect how powerful it is to the reader. See Gandalf. As for the Wickans.

SPOILER: Wickans

Well look at Nil and Nether. They were part of the reborn group from old wizards. Yet they clearly throughout the series have both their identity and the knowledge of what they got from the crows. Yes this is more than Buddhist reincarnation, but nothing we have been shown has Nil or Nether being the people they were reborn from. They yes have power, but they are still very clearly kids/teens. So maybe Coltaine will have knowledge about war, but he won't be Coltaine. He will be someone different.

[Myshkin]

Ok, I did generalize. Sorry for that. But can you see my point, can you see how for some Erikson's constant resurrection of characters he's killed might break their trust in him, and might dampen the emotional impact of future death scenes? If Quick Ben were to die in the opening chapters of the next book would you believe that he truly was dead, and feel suitably sad about his death? Or would you be waiting for him to return, perhaps far stronger than he was before?