Books

[Calax]

The closest parallel I can think of is Glen Cook's The Black Company. Chances are if you enjoy that, you'll like Malazan.

Doesn't the Gardens of the Moon have a glenn cook quote to promote it? (And the Instrumentality of the Night books have Erikson promoting those?)

 

I think Erikson would have a lot more followers if he nailed down the narrative to a slightly more linear structure IN THE BOOKS (I don't mind the books being all over in chronology, but actually IN the books I think it needs to be less... schitzophrenic). And maybe explained more about the world.

[HoonDing]

Rereading Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson. Great book. I have to say that the book makes a lot more sense the second time around.

Takes forever to get going IIRC.

It's funny how it starts and ends with two ridiculously over-the-top magical battles, and between that basically nothing happens.

[MechanicalLemon]

The closest parallel I can think of is Glen Cook's The Black Company. Chances are if you enjoy that, you'll like Malazan.

Doesn't the Gardens of the Moon have a glenn cook quote to promote it? (And the Instrumentality of the Night books have Erikson promoting those?)

 

I think Erikson would have a lot more followers if he nailed down the narrative to a slightly more linear structure IN THE BOOKS (I don't mind the books being all over in chronology, but actually IN the books I think it needs to be less... schitzophrenic). And maybe explained more about the world.

 

I think so, but I can't recall where I saw it. I do know that Erikson dedicated Toll the Hounds to Glen Cook. The Bridgeburners is a direct homage to the Black Company.

[Calax]

I know that Erikson did a foreward for the Dread Empire omnibus by nightshade books. The main reason he loves Cook is because Cook puts in things about how things work economically and politically.

[Guard Dog]

BTW, how is Gardens of the Moon ? I bought it off the sale rack a while back but have never read it. I have a hard time getting into fantasy unless Tolkien or Martin wrote it.

 

Malazan is a tricky series in that people inevitably love or hate it. Erikson doesn't tell his story in a straightforward, chronological way. For frame of reference:

 

 

Combined with a huge cast of characters and a shockingly in-depth world...it can get confusing. I remember having a lot of trouble in the first few books. It gets easier once you become familiar with the world and its terminology.

 

It's similar to GRRM's ASoIaF in that it nails a dark, gritty atmosphere but whereas Martin has a more low-fantasy world, Malazan is full of magic and gods who like to intervene (resurrection, making pawns, etc). Also, Malazan has a lot of characters but at the expense of depth, unfortunately. You probably won't find well-written characters on the level of ASoIaF. So if you prefer fantasy that doesn't rely on magic, stay away from these books.

 

The closest parallel I can think of is Glen Cook's The Black Company. Chances are if you enjoy that, you'll like Malazan.

 

Thanks, I don't think that's for me.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Guard Dog

[Cantousent]

I've been reading CS Lewis' Signature Classics. It's a compilation of his great works on Christianity. Wonderful stuff.

 

I do get a kick out of... I guess it's the 'Mere Christianity' part. Apparently, the short chapters come from his weekly radio adresses. I try to imagine listening to him on the radio. I've got to tell you, some of the priests I've heard could really use a pointer or two from him. Granted, not everyone can be a CS Lewis. He was a fascinating man who, like a lot of British men of that time, fought in World War One.

 

Anyhow, what is with the Russian invasion? I guess it's Russian. The alphabet looks Cyrillic to me at least. I see that location on the latest fellow is Israel, so maybe not. It's a real downer though. Clogs up the pages something fierce.

 

EDIT: Aw, I see I came to the party late. Someone deleted the Russians spam before I posted. Still, we've been getting a lot of it lately as it seems to me.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Cantousent

[Guard Dog]

Forget my previous idea... the theme has been done to death and all the story outlines I've come up with strike me as improbable. The key to good historical fiction IMHOP is if the story could have happened. Does the plot fit into the historical setting? In this case, no. The trouble is my military service has left me with the impression that the military is highly organized and moves with a great deal of coordination. That was not the case in the Civil War, particularly in the south because every state fielded it's own army. There really was no unified command as there was in the north.

[Walsingham]

GD, just wondering, but something I'd definitely buy would be anything covering French colonial wars, with your same themes in it. Particularly Africa. Same period, even. Could be interesting. Then the genuine historical facts would be as alien and fascinating as your counterfactual additions.

[Guard Dog]

GD, just wondering, but something I'd definitely buy would be anything covering French colonial wars, with your same themes in it. Particularly Africa. Same period, even. Could be interesting. Then the genuine historical facts would be as alien and fascinating as your counterfactual additions.

Not a bad idea, just not an area I'm well versed in. I'd still like to so something with the post-war south. The Reconstruction, both the good and the bad is a fascinating subject to me because it's influence can still be found even 145 years later.

[Cantousent]

The thing is that the U.S. military is the most powerful, trained, and effective force we've had on the planet to date but it is still in kind with Civil War militaries from either the north or the south. Yes, it's an uneven comparison, but any group that rises above the level of a mob will have certain characteristics in common with other such groups. I didn't see your earlier suggestion, GD, but using your experience with modern military as a reason to discard the idea might be premature. ...And, having served at a variety of combined commands, including combined commands with other miliatries as well as US Army and Marine commands while I was in some twenty years ago, I can tell you that no military, even ours, is the 'well oiled machine' that folks envision. Hell, I haven't known anyone in any branch who hasn't seen their share of snafus arising out of our shabby ol' humanity coming into play.

 

Of course, you say your idea is more or less cliched, which might be a good reason to dump it. I'm just playing the other side on the military front because I always like to see folks try to find new ways of telling old stories. If something is truly 'cliched' then I'm sure you should throw it over. On the other hand, if it's an old idea with something of yourself thrown in to make it interesting, why not try it?

 

On the third hand, I've never much cared for counterfactual histories. I know they're popular and I understand why folks like them, but I've just never gotten into the concept because I've seen it bleed into academic work where I loathe people using counterfactual arguments to support claims about real world historical events. ...But, what the hell, I don't like 'what ifs' but I think it's a solid prospect for a story, even if it's not my cuppa.

[Gorth]

On the third hand, I've never much cared for counterfactual histories. I know they're popular and I understand why folks like them, but I've just never gotten into the concept because I've seen it bleed into academic work where I loathe people using counterfactual arguments to support claims about real world historical events.

Hehe, like when romantic literature portrays Richard "Lionheart" as a just and altruistic ruler of the English

[Cantousent]

That's more of a legend. Kind of like Washington is always portrayed as gentle. Hey, I think Washington is probably the greatest American we've ever had, but better to see our legendary figures for what they were than what folks think they should have been. If we still love and revere them when we see them without their clothes, then they're all that much more remarkable. I've always been a great admirer of Perikles, but he wasn't superhuman. he was human, and that made everything he did much more meaningful.

 

...But, yeah, I tend to prefer straight fiction or historical fiction that doesn't rely on historical events coming out differently. When I talk about counterfactual arguments, I'm pretty much strictly speaking about folks arguing about the events rather than the personalities. For example, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There are modern ideological arguments that require arguing that the events could have happened differently and should have happened differently. From a philosophical standpoint, that may be true, but from a historical standpoint, the events did happen a certain way. We can guess how they might have happened otherwise, but we cannot prove the idea. It's when folks try to prove counterfactual theories that I balk.

[Gorth]

If we still love and revere them when we see them without their clothes, then they're all that much more remarkable.

That's what Playboy is for

 

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I "get" your Hiroshima/Nagasaki example

 

I mean, we all know it happened, the discussion being about the necessity, i.e. was it more for the benefit of intimidating the Soviets? Is it the implausability of some of these "alternative" motivations that irritates you?

[Cantousent]

I don't mind folks arguing from a historical perspective. I mean, it did happen, so counterfactuals only go so far but you have to engage in that sort of thinking to a degree. What folks do, however, is take that event, say the bombing of Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, and use it as a way to castigate the Truman administration and America. That line of reasoning is ridiculous. Argument over policy should be forward thinking. If it goes back to historical events, it should do so only to highlight possible future outcomes, not as a political weapon to castigate one side or another. So, getting too deep in the weeds in terms of arguing about how one side should have done this particular thing better as a sort of oblique attack on current nations, administrations, or populations is idiotic.

 

I wish I had taken a different example. The bombing makes it seem like this is an issue I have as an American, but folks creating whole alternate histories that they present as the basis for a different world today based on small changes in history is ridiculous. Take a different example: If the Athenians had sent more folks to islands while Attica was overrun, they would have avoided the outbreak of plague and therefore won the war after several years instead of losing it after almost three decades of ugly fighting. There's no way to prove that theory. It provides an interesting conversation piece, but it isn't particularly fruitful in the long run otherwise.

 

The problem is, considering other possibilities is one of the hallmarks of certain historiographical philosophies, which is fine for what it is. You have to be able to think of the alternate possibilities in order to form a cogent argument about actual outcomes. But an entire work that says that this specific line of events would have been the outcome of a single change defies reasoning. Multiple changes make the matter worse and the line of outcomes starts as little more than educated guessing and gets worse very quickly.

 

EDIT: and, no, arguing about motivations is centered on the events as they occured, not as you think they should have. I mean, mind reading has its own pitfalls, but saying that the administration did it because they hated Asians is different than saying that the war would have ended almost as quickly with virtually no additional loss of life if we hadn't bombed the Japanese.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Cantousent

[Gorth]

Why didn't you just say so right away

 

Joking aside, I think I get it

 

As a lover of history, I do very much care about those "behind the scenes" things though, trying to understand not only the what of an event, but also the why. Things always happens for a reason. It may not make sense in hindsight. It might not make sense when compared to contemporary thinking. But at some point in time in a particular context it made sense to somebody deciding to do something. Those are the bits that I often chase

[Cantousent]

Yeah, you can't really discuss anything in history without asking why and with what immediate outcomes. My point isn't to discourage that sort of thinking. That's great stuff and is why I love history also. Like I said, you have to engage in a certain amount of what if. It's the point at which you stop, which should be well before what if and becomes this is exactly what would have happened that ceases to be history. :cant's handing Gorth a cold brew icon:

 

EDIT: As usual, my own cold brew had me put in the exact opposite word I mean.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Cantousent

[Guard Dog]

Well, I am dropping that idea because I found myself planning a rewrite of The Heart of Darkness and Conrad already did a pretty good job of that story. Plus my research into the history of the Kansas/Missouri border war made me realize that while it was historically significant, it was not strategicly significant and not something a Confederate commander facing an immenint invasion would dedicate assets to. I also find a lot of compelling stories in the dissolution and further activites of Quatrill & Bill Andersons raiders but that has been done to death also (ever heard of Jesse James, the Outlaw Josey Wales, etc). Instead I'm looking at a story about a regular infantry officer returning home and trying to rebuild a life in the post war south. His family is missing, home has been confiscated, his country is in ruins. I might have something to work with there.

[Walsingham]

It sounds harsh, even to me, GD. But hasn't that kind of ground been covered already? Wasn't there that film with Nicole Kidman did much the same thing?

 

Speaking of which, regarding the above, MOST MISLEADING TRAILER EVER.

[Guard Dog]

It sounds harsh, even to me, GD. But hasn't that kind of ground been covered already? Wasn't there that film with Nicole Kidman did much the same thing?

 

Speaking of which, regarding the above, MOST MISLEADING TRAILER EVER.

I've never read the book, the movie was ok, the best part being a brit and an aussie trying to speak with southern accents . But I'm thinking a completely different story. Cold Mountain ends when the soldier comes home. I'd begin there. Also, it was set in a part of North Carolina that did not see any fighting. I was thinking Georgia/South Carolina, right in the path of Sherman's March.

[Walsingham]

I am probably being biased. I like to explore new orlds when I read, even history. I just wonder if you could find echoes of these themes in unexplored territory.

 

What happened to veterans of the war? Did any go abroad and become mercs?

[Raithe]

Hm, and in the book line.. apparently Anne Mccaffrey has passed away, aged 85.

 

She brought us the assorted Dragonriders of Pern.. but also the Ship Who Sang, and that helped pave a whole subgenre of sci-fi.

[Fionavar]

Game of Thrones ... not sure I will be sleeping any time soon :?

[Cantousent]

Poor Fio. :D

[Walsingham]

BREAK BREAK

 

GD, I've been listening to the biography of the spy known as Mata Hari. Apparently her husbnad was involved in this massive campaign in the Dutch East Indies I'd never heard of. Sounds fascinating. Plenty of mercenaries too. Maybe mix in that war with shreds of your original story as part retrospective? That way you'd get the civil war chaps, exploit your understanding, and bring in a really exotic flavour at the same time.

[Guard Dog]

BREAK BREAK

 

GD, I've been listening to the biography of the spy known as Mata Hari. Apparently her husbnad was involved in this massive campaign in the Dutch East Indies I'd never heard of. Sounds fascinating. Plenty of mercenaries too. Maybe mix in that war with shreds of your original story as part retrospective? That way you'd get the civil war chaps, exploit your understanding, and bring in a really exotic flavour at the same time.

Ok I think you are on to something here. I was investigating if any conferderate veterans turned up in the French Foreign Legion, or the British Army following Approtimax but I like this idea too.

 

On a book note I'm now reading The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805 by Richard Zacks. As many of you know it was the Barbary Coast campaign where the line in the Marine Corps hymn "To the shores of Tripoli" came from. Fascinating reading.