White-Luck Warrior X: X Marks the Slog

[Durckad]

As a simple creature with simple pleasures, I can say that while EAMD is getting a bit old, pendulous phalli will always be enjoyable.

Wait...

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Full reread would be awesome. I just finished the last book I was reading and I could dig out my notes on my thoughts for the symbolism of the trees.

[Ayx]

Those who can do, those who can't become critics :-)

Bakker's style from Kelthus's inner monologues is easy to emulate stylistically, hence so many linguistically gifted people in these threads do it very well, which results in "Look ma, how much crap I can fit into a paragraph, while sounding all philosophical" circle-jerks.

But that style imho used not that often in the the text itself, it appears more in the world building, in creating atmosphere, ie epigraphs / quotes in the beginning of each chapter, and also when we were inside Kelthus head in the 1st book, and in flashbacks to Seswasha memories. Last instance of Kelthus inner thoughts sounding like it was when he had the "should I tell them the truth" monologue, while having/imagining the world talking back to him, somewhere in the first trilogy.

In any case, to me personally books would not had been any less epic, without the "death comes swirling down", glistening phalluses, and Ajenis's quotes. They just add to character / world-building. Those people here who mock them, are imho secretly like it, and just impatient to get more of it, so they pass time by making light fun of their addiction to philosophical techno-bubble :-)

[Sci-2]

I think, to an extent, it works. [but] I think as time goes on, the repetitiveness of the telling-not-showing weakens the books.

That said, this remains one of the better fantasy series out at present time. The stakes have been presented in a, to me anyway, fairly unique manner.

Most fantasies would have good guys vs. bad guys, but here we really don't know who is going to come out on top.

There are lots of other criticisms that can be applied, but we've covered them already.

[lokisnow]

I think, to an extent, it works. [but] I think as time goes on, the repetitiveness of the telling-not-showing weakens the books.

That said, this remains one of the better fantasy series out at present time. The stakes have been presented in a, to me anyway, fairly unique manner.

Most fantasies would have good guys vs. bad guys, but here we really don't know who is going to come out on top.

There are lots of other criticisms that can be applied, but we've covered them already.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much burying the lede really helps Bakker. If he wants to point to why his sales suck, it's because his Shadow of the Past chapter is not the second chapter, it's the fucking final chapter of his second book.

And then he doesn't even include half of it, instead he hides all the rest of the essential info (that again ought to be in a Shadow of the Past chapter) in the fucking dictionary at the end of the third book.

He makes it so goddamned hard to like his books, it's kind of amazing.

Imagine the delicious irony if chapter two of TDTCB had Akka telling the (now skin spy) Geshruni everything he told the great names in the end of TWP. It's delicious, he's trying to persuade the Consult that the Consult exists and is bad while he is totally unaware the proof he so badly wants is right in front of him, disagreeing with him. Rather than having two books of Akka moping about how no one believes him about the Consult (but never actually telling us what the Consult is) the stakes would be set very quickly. And the irony of the skin spy being on the other side of the equation feels almost irresistible. But we don't get that.

[Shryke]

??

Every fantasy story in he past 20+ years buries the lead like that. It's practically a cliche at this point.

[lokisnow]

yeah, and it's irritating in all of them.

With Martin less so, because your first read all the shadow of the past stuff seems pretty unimportant, and it feels like the Old Nan tales give you all the info you need to contextualize the prologue attack. As the world expands in the sequels, Martin's Shadow of the Past info becomes more important, but it still feels like an aside to the contemporary politi-drama Game of Thrones (and I mean aside in that you can grasp the conflicts and the history adds context, motivation and flavor, but it's still understandable even if you don't give two shits about Harry the Heir). I've never really felt that Martin is hiding "The One Ring" level info for the entire series, whereas Bakker would definitely hide "The One Ring" info for the entire series. Bakker wouldn't even mention the Ring until the hobbits had finished scouring the shire, then he might drop an aside like, 'oh and it was good Gollum dropped Old Bilbo's ring in the fire, that turned out rather important in the end." But never bother explaining why destroying the ring was important (that sort of reasoning is the readers' job, right?).

[Tears of Lys]

The burying of the lead seems to be more a function of the editing of the book. isn't that where the clarity of your plot needs to be addressed? The author, knowing all, of course, can sometimes assume he/she is getting their point across, whereas the editor, if skillful, can suggests changes to tighten things up, etc.

[lokisnow]

Hard for the Editor to suggest changes if the introduction to the stakes of the story doesn't happen in the text of the first book.

[Shryke]

yeah, and it's irritating in all of them.

With Martin less so, because your first read all the shadow of the past stuff seems pretty unimportant, and it feels like the Old Nan tales give you all the info you need to contextualize the prologue attack. As the world expands in the sequels, Martin's Shadow of the Past info becomes more important, but it still feels like an aside to the contemporary politi-drama Game of Thrones (and I mean aside in that you can grasp the conflicts and the history adds context, motivation and flavor, but it's still understandable even if you don't give two shits about Harry the Heir). I've never really felt that Martin is hiding "The One Ring" level info for the entire series, whereas Bakker would definitely hide "The One Ring" info for the entire series. Bakker wouldn't even mention the Ring until the hobbits had finished scouring the shire, then he might drop an aside like, 'oh and it was good Gollum dropped Old Bilbo's ring in the fire, that turned out rather important in the end." But never bother explaining why destroying the ring was important (that sort of reasoning is the readers' job, right?).

I don't get how it's anything like this.

It's more like, as I said, every fantasy series where the big plot and the history infodump are given out in small contextual chunks over the course of the series.

Like (to use the series I'm reading right now) the way Abercrombie doesn't start revealing the history of his world or the purpose behind Bayaz's quest till basically 2/3rds of the way through book 2 of the First Law trilogy.

Or the way Lynch or Abraham or Jordan or Sanderson or Erikson or Rothfuss drip feed you historical details and such over the course of the books/series.

It'd be more like LOTR not revealing the full extent of the Ring's history till after Frodo encounters Strider or makes it to the Council at Rivendell. Which LOTR does do to some extent.

[Happy Ent]

I think the slow reveal has been absolutely stunning so far. There was more than enough to keep me interested already in Darkness, when the Consult’s motivation were still a mystery.

And what we got in Warrior-Prophet:

“But it wasn’t me! It was them! The Cishaurim command the Padirajah! It was their—” “Fault, Gaorta?” the Old Father said. “The very poison we would suck from this world?”

I found that delicious. So much hidden. So much … held back. Groping, blindly, as a confused boy playing delicious games in complete darkness with the piano teacher.

[Kalbear]

It's basically the Lost method of storytelling. Which is fine, but it often ends up sucking because of the huge expectations on payoff.

It does reward rereads. It doesn't reward reading.

[Shryke]

It's basically the Lost method of storytelling. Which is fine, but it often ends up sucking because of the huge expectations on payoff.

It does reward rereads. It doesn't reward reading.

So no series of the past like, at least 25 years rewards reading?

[Tears of Lys]

Hard for the Editor to suggest changes if the introduction to the stakes of the story doesn't happen in the text of the first book.

I'm assuming that the basic plot points of the story are outlined for the editor and they're not coming to it cold. Could be wrong, I guess, never having written a book.

Probably each author and editor works differently. :dunno:

[Sci-2]

I thought Darkness was pretty strong for a debut [and I didn't mind the mysteries left unrevealed]. I think Bakker's been far less crazy about burying stuff than Erikson has, and while it's not for everyone Malazn seems pretty successful.

[Shryke]

Erikson just never reveals anything. And when he does, it contradicts itself or makes even less sense.

[Spring Bass]

Same here, Sciborg. Darkness is far and away the easiest of the PoN Trilogy to read, at least for me. I struggled on my first read-throughs of Warrior-Prophet and TTT, and had some difficulty in reading everything in TJE and WLW (particularly the Momenn chapters, which I found deeply dull compared to what was going on in the slog).

[Shryke]

Can I get a bit of a refresher? Are we not pretty well informed about the Consult in book 1?

As I remember we know:

- there was an apocalypse

- the Consult wants to do it again

- the Mandate is the only ones who still believe they exist.

[Kalbear]

So no series of the past like, at least 25 years rewards reading?

Hah - as if this was the same as all others. As if it is the same degree. Malazan is a fair comparison, though at least things are happening a bit earlier that matter for their own sake.

But finding out at the end of the second book what's actually at stake? What other book does that? Wot didn't. Asoiaf certainly doesn't. Donaldson didn't.

Thinking on it, you can divide it up where you know more than the characters or you know less. Bakker is firmly in the know less state. And that's fine! Many books work for the surprise. The big reveal. Problem is when the reveal isn't worth the wait.

[Shryke]

Hah - as if this was the same as all others. As if it is the same degree. Malazan is a fair comparison, though at least things are happening a bit earlier that matter for their own sake.

But finding out at the end of the second book what's actually at stake? What other book does that? Wot didn't. Asoiaf certainly doesn't. Donaldson didn't.

Thinking on it, you can divide it up where you know more than the characters or you know less. Bakker is firmly in the know less state. And that's fine! Many books work for the surprise. The big reveal. Problem is when the reveal isn't worth the wait.

You know what's at stake right from the start. The Consult wants to bring about the Second Apocalypse. You learn this in literally the first chapter. (although it doesn't feel like it cause the prologue is hella long) Inrau's death at like the third or halfway mark of the book establishes that they are moving right now too and there's plenty of foreshadowing before that. The climax of the first book connects the weird shit going on before that to the greater threat of the Consult.

All the big speech at the end of TWP does is infodump the exact nature of the enemy and the apocalypse. None of which is really necessary to anything before that point. The stakes are already well known before then. The word "apocalypse" is fairly descriptive on it's own.

As I mentioned before, this is far more then Abercrombie ever gives you in the First Law before he dumps it over halfway through book 2.

And saying "well, it's not worth the wait" is purely subjective.

Look, if in medias res isn't your thing, whatever. But let's not pretend it's not the standard.