Prince of Nothing

[Shryke]

I think the names are some of the best parts. They make it feel authentic instead of "I goggled for a fantasy name generator and then went nuts".

[delete this account pls]

Agreed. There's a method to the madness of the names. What I like is that they all have their own flavour. Nansur names are different from Norsirai names, which are different from Scylvendi names, or Shigeki names, or Conriyan, etc, etc.

[Papirolle]

I'll grant you that the names are good, original and feel "fantasy-esque". But why the stupid spelling? And why are they so alike? Skeaös, Skiötha, Skauras, Skalateas, Skaiyelt... :bang:

Very minor complaint though, the books are highly recommended!

[Paxter]

[quote name='Papirolle' post='1749226' date='Apr 8 2009, 17.39']But why the stupid spelling?[/quote]

Happy Ent should be able to help you with this. IIRC, he finds the spelling of the names helpful in ascertaining their pronunciation. I wish I could say the same - if it wasn't for the pronunciation guide in TDTCB, I doubt I would have ever pronounced Serwe or Cnaiur correctly.

[LianeM]

Dissenting opinion: I found the first book boring, pretentious, heavy-handed and repulsive. Nothing at all in it caught my interest and since the things other people praise about the book (it has literary aspirations! it is [i]philosophical[/i]!) are wholly unappealing to me, I didn't bother to go on.

It's very much a niche read that, I think, appeals primarily to jaded readers who are bored with more conventional stories and have a high tolerance for philosophical maunderings (something to which I personally am strongly allergic, particularly when -- as here -- they completely take over character and plot). Definitely a cult-classic kind of thing, and not for me.

[Wulfram]

Kellhus' mind control through fortune cookie mottos annoys me.

[Cnaiur]

[quote name='LianeM' post='1749416' date='Apr 8 2009, 10.19']Dissenting opinion: I found the first book boring, pretentious, heavy-handed and repulsive. Nothing at all in it caught my interest and since the things other people praise about the book (it has literary aspirations! it is [i]philosophical[/i]!) are wholly unappealing to me, I didn't bother to go on.

It's very much a niche read that, [b]I think, appeals primarily to jaded readers who are bored with more conventional stories and have a high tolerance for philosophical maunderings (something to which I personally am strongly allergic, particularly when -- as here -- they completely take over character and plot).[/b] Definitely a cult-classic kind of thing, and not for me.[/quote]

I think I kind of agree with you here. While not a heavy Fantasy reader I get extremely bored with conventional stories. To put a finer point on it I am bored with conventional 1 dimensional characters. I really find Bakker's characters very interesting. Like Martin even some of the characters that I had thought cliche-ish ended up being more fleshed out and dynamic than I had initially thought. Call it philosophical meandering but my favorite characters in this series are those in conflict with themselves and constantly re-evaluating their own motivations "measure is never ending". It develope characters whom I care about.

I believe that is why I also like Martin.

Spoiler for aSoIaF

[quote][color="#FFFFFF"]Just like in Martin. The Red Wedding is a simple betrayal no amazing plot twist if you really think about it from a story board perspective. However, the characters are so well developed that the events and plot have more meaning and are much more enthralling[/color].[/quote]

[lokisnow]

one thing I noticed in my reread of TDTCB is that Serwe first sees halos around Kellhus' hands before they've made contact with any of the Nansur. very interesting. I noticed a bunch of interesting elements rereading the meeting of great names in the Andiamine Heights, but I've forgotten most of them. :-p

[Myshkin]

During my re-read I've found that while TDTCB is even better the second time around, [i]The Warrior-Prophet[/i] suffers a little from a second reading. It becomes pretty obvious that Bakker stuffed TWP with filler in the form of pointless repetition. Still a very good book, but a lot could have been edited out with out hurting the story.

[aidan]

[quote name='LianeM' post='1749416' date='Apr 8 2009, 07.19']Dissenting opinion: I found the first book boring, pretentious, heavy-handed and repulsive. Nothing at all in it caught my interest and since the things other people praise about the book (it has literary aspirations! it is [i]philosophical[/i]!) are wholly unappealing to me, I didn't bother to go on.

It's very much a niche read that, I think, appeals primarily to jaded readers who are bored with more conventional stories and have a high tolerance for philosophical maunderings (something to which I personally am strongly allergic, particularly when -- as here -- they completely take over character and plot). Definitely a cult-classic kind of thing, and not for me.[/quote]

This is why I've never given Bakker a chance. I know what I like, and I just don't think I'll enjoy it.

[Spring Bass]

That's a pity, really. I personally didn't like philosophical fantasy much before I read the series, and I loved The Prince of Nothing Trilogy.

[Shryke]

Yeah, LianeM's "review" is SERIOUSLY biased. Her description of it's "niche fanbase" is bullshit.

Not to say she can't have her opinion, but don't think "Well, I'M not a jaded reader who hates traditional storytelling, so I won't like this series".

[afterroots]

[quote name='Guardsman Bass' post='1750154' date='Apr 8 2009, 23.26']That's a pity, really. I personally didn't like philosophical fantasy much before I read the series, and I loved The Prince of Nothing Trilogy.[/quote]

This was exactly the same for me.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Papirolle' post='1749226' date='Apr 8 2009, 11.39']But why the stupid spelling?[/quote]
The spelling is phonetic. As soon as you understand that the umlauts aren’t umlauts but diaeresis it’s all crystal clear. The only oddity is that there is no established symbol for “this consonant is almost silent,” so the initial consonant in Cnaiür actually requires the pronunciation dictionary in the appendix.

Otherwise I can’t really see how the spelling could be easier. It’s [i]much[/i] clearer how the characters are called than [i]Ice and Fire[/i], for example, where you get [i]no[/i] help. First vowel in Tyrion vs. Tywin? You’re on your own.

But Bakker tells you if the last syllable in Serwe is silent or not: Serwë. It’s [i]not[/i] silent. Likewise, -ai- in Cnaiür forms a diphtong (same sound as in English “like”), but the -u– is a separate vowel and moreover is pronounced like in “sure”, not in “cut”. That’s what the ü tells you.

The only alternatives are:
a) Martin’s solution: give [i]no[/i] help for pronunciation. Cnaiur. Serwe. Skaeos.
b) Use mock-English pro-norn-see-EIGH-shun: nay-OOR, sair-WAY, skay-AWS. That would be terrible (at least to me), because it would pull me linguistically right out of the story every time.

[Papirolle]

You are probably completely right HE, I'm just too linguistically impaired to realize it. I didn't study the names that hard, I just saw a jumble of characters (and symbols) and sighed.

[LianeM]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1750161' date='Apr 8 2009, 23.40']Yeah, LianeM's "review" is SERIOUSLY biased. Her description of it's "niche fanbase" is bullshit.

Not to say she can't have her opinion, but don't think "Well, I'M not a jaded reader who hates traditional storytelling, so I won't like this series".[/quote]

Gosh, yes, how could I ever have been so foolish. Clearly the work has mass appeal to all sorts of readers, is easily picked up by complete novices to fantasy, and is just 110% commercial in every respect. :rolleyes:

Good to have that cleared up.

[Horza]

[quote name='Wulfram' post='1749616' date='Apr 9 2009, 02.44']Kellhus' mind control through fortune cookie mottos annoys me.[/quote]

A stranger will become a friend, give him your wallet.

[wolverine]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1750272' date='Apr 9 2009, 04.51']As soon as you understand that the umlauts aren’t umlauts but diaeresis it’s all crystal clear.[/quote]

Oh, no problem then because I know what a diaeresis is!?!? :drool:

[Horza]

[quote name='LianeM' post='1750323' date='Apr 9 2009, 22.06']Gosh, yes, how could I ever have been so foolish. Clearly the work has mass appeal to all sorts of readers, is easily picked up by complete novices to fantasy, and is just 110% commercial in every respect. :rolleyes:

Good to have that cleared up.[/quote]

Truly, one can either be a mass-market commercial juggernaut or an obscure niche book read by freaks, there is no in-between.

[LianeM]

[quote name='Horza' post='1750331' date='Apr 9 2009, 08.13']Truly, one can either be a mass-market commercial juggernaut or an obscure niche book read by freaks, there is no in-between.[/quote]

Oh, please.

I said that the book, as far as I can tell, appeals [u]primarily[/u] to a readership already very comfortable with fantasy and looking for something new. I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that non-jaded readers are not going to tolerate the level of brutality, misogyny, and unrelenting grimness in the novel.

I also think it's pretty reasonable to say that this is not a book with mass appeal, given that it hasn't had breakout sales figures like Abercrombie or Rothfuss and doesn't exactly have a mass-market-friendly tone. However, it [u]is[/u] a book that obviously appeals to hardcore fantasy fans given that it is often talked about and praised on fantasy-centric blogs and message boards. This very thread demonstrates that: it's overwhelmingly positive. Look at the book's reception on a less specialized forum, however, and reviews are a lot more mixed. It's currently rating 3.5 stars at Amazon.

I don't think there was anything unreasonable or unfounded in what I said. I never called it "an obscure niche book read by freaks." But at this point I wouldn't be inclined to disagree with the second part of that, either, and am done with this thread.