[Dawnstorm]

It's good to hear I'm not alone. :o

I think their relationship is nicely summarised in this quote (Esmenet's point of view):

Theirs was a strange marriage, if it could be called that. A marriage of outcasts sanctified by inarticulate vows. A sorcerer and a whore. Perhaps a certain desperation was to be expected from such unions, as though that strange word, "love" became profound in proportion to the degree one was scorned by others.

[billyf27]

I find that the book was too much dialogue, there's just too much telling and not showing. There are so many better fantasy writers out there. It also saddens me that it cheapens into a x-rated book. This is a cheap thrill often used by less talented writers to get readership. There's nothing special about the magic in this book, no characters I cared about, just more of the same.
Too many bad words and descriptive sex, definatly degrading to woman, no matter what excuse the author uses. Hopefully. I can return it to bookstore: a waste of money. Thats just what I think, anyway.

[Jack]

I've pointed out in other threads one of the hugest kicks I got out of this book was the imagery of the Holy War. Through Bakker's description, I could not only see and hear this incredible mass of people from all walks of life, I could smell the food cooking, the body odor, the perfume on the whores, the sex; I could taste all these same things in the air. I could feel the heat in the day, the cool temperatures at night, the warmth and companionship of a fire.

Now I haven't focused on imagery as a worthy literary device since high school - since then I've just assumed an author would give me imagery, and a certain level of quality in this imagery is expected, or the book would not get read. However, Bakker exceeded my required median for imagery quality, so I believe it is worth bringing up.

[Eventine]

I did notice that on my readthrough to, but wasn't sure whether to take that as the no-god, some other god, or what. But there were a few other things I thought might point to that, as well. I'll have to see if I can remember what they were.

When Achamiam first sees Cnaiur he comments to himself that he is the first Scylvendi he's seen outside his dreams, andit's quite troubling as in his dream the Scylvendi fought for the No-God. I wonder on the implications of this if Moenghus is in league with the Consult...


Well I had issues with the underlying philosophies of R.Scott.Bakker and sadly this ruined the story for me. The Darkness That Comes Before had the potential to be a real page turner but, for me every second page was like a slap in the face. I found statements like "Everything. He'd gained everything. Faith for knowledge, wisdom for cunning, heart for intellect- " to be ignorant closed mindedness, and mildly insulting!
I guess this is one of those times when knowing too much about the author has in fact ruined what could have been a good book for me.
Sorry people I diddn't finish the book. I did vote for it, but the little niggles were ruining the story for me. Scott is obviously a talented writer but this effort diddn't float my boat! ;)

Hi Nevyn - just wondering if you could explain more on why you find that quote to be "ignorant closed mindedness, and mildly insulting"? I'm not trying to stir, just wondering why it hit a nerve? Also, where abouts does it appear in the book?

The thing that bothers me a little about it (and I may have to go back and read the last Andiamine chapters) are HOW and WHY Xerius knew about Skeaos being wrong. I get that Kellhus was looking at him funny, but other than that, it seemed like an over-the-top reaction (unless there was something else I missed that made Xerius think traitor.)
Xerius noticed Kellhus nod at Skeaos right before his little speach that swung things around to Cnaiur.

...

As far as the whole Achamiam/Esmi acting out of character at the end, when the perspective switches back to Akka after their non-confrontation, it's described that he had no memmmory of how he got back or even what he was thinking - he was definitely in a state of shock - he can't believe that the Consult has resurfaced in his generation, and that he was the one to find them.

Overall, I think Scott distinguishes himself from the rest of the epic pack by using his characters as a lense to focus on more than the conflict around them - they think about who they are and how they relate to the world around them. It's not until you've talked to / read interviews with Scott that you realise how much this technique is a vehicle for him expounding a philosophy.

And one last comment for the moment:
The first time I read this I suffered something that happens to me sometimes when starting a new epic series: Fantasy Name Overload Syndrome. This disease occurs when large numbers of fantasy names are dumped in the opening segments of a book without any real context to understand them, and can create low levels of confusion working out what everything actually is. The flipside to this is Infodump Overload Syndrome, where the author rigorously explains everything as it appears, and doesn't progress the plot. I don't think Scott quite found the balance here, but he was close.

[Eventine]

I find that the book was too much dialogue, there's just too much telling and not showing. There are so many better fantasy writers out there. It also saddens me that it cheapens into a x-rated book. This is a cheap thrill often used by less talented writers to get readership. There's nothing special about the magic in this book, no characters I cared about, just more of the same.
Too many bad words and descriptive sex, definatly degrading to woman, no matter what excuse the author uses. Hopefully. I can return it to bookstore: a waste of money. Thats just what I think, anyway.

Hi,
If you'd like to expand on those comments the Fantasy Book Cluub discussion book for this month is The Darkness That Comes Before - I'd be interested in seeing if there was a particular scene you felt pushed it into x-rated, what you felt were "bad words" (swearing? bad use of words?) and what you felt was "more of the same".

Cheers.

[Dawnstorm]

And one last comment for the moment:
The first time I read this I suffered something that happens to me sometimes when starting a new epic series: Fantasy Name Overload Syndrome. This disease occurs when large numbers of fantasy names are dumped in the opening segments of a book without any real context to understand them, and can create low levels of confusion working out what everything actually is. The flipside to this is Infodump Overload Syndrome, where the author rigorously explains everything as it appears, and doesn't progress the plot. I don't think Scott quite found the balance here, but he was close.

The operative word here is "the first time", I think. I usually don't read a book twice, but I do flip back and forth while reading if something puzzles me. I much prefer that method to info-dumping. I like books you need to read actively, instead of just letting the words drip in (well, I like some of those, too...)

Actually, I think the naming was very well done. For example, if the Dűnyain call their teachers "Pragma", and refer themselves as the Conditioned, you get a pretty good picture of what they may be about in just two words.

I quite like names like "No-God" or "non-men", too. (Since I'm not convinced there are gods in Earwa [sp?], I'm hoping for the irony that the No-God is just that: no god.)

***

Sometimes, I thought there were to many "!"; and sometimes I found the italicised thought would have flowed better in thrid person transliteration, but other than that I really liked the language.

***

Question: What does everybody make of the Non-men? Do they work for the Consult? In the second prologue we hear they've fought both with and against the No-God... I assume, they've killed Geshrunni (Achamian's first informant), as they've removed his face, and the non-man we met in the prologue wore a cloak of faces. Are they behind the killing of all the spies (Mandate, Emperor's) in Sumna? Is Maithanet a non-man? (He can see the Few; I suspect a non-man could...) Do they have an agenda of their own?

[Nevyn]

Hi Nevyn - just wondering if you could explain more on why you find that quote to be "ignorant closed mindedness, and mildly insulting"? I'm not trying to stir, just wondering why it hit a nerve? Also, where abouts does it appear in the book? Sure mate, I'll do my best to answer. The quote is from page 118. It hit a nerve because it is a very narrow view of what is involved in faith. Some people like to think that when you have faith, you have given away thought and reason, hence a thirst for knowledge. Not true! I very much like to know how things work. I trust God = faith, God also gave me a brain so I use it. So really the only part of the quote I am taking issue with is the faith for knowledge part! I'll take wisdom over cunning any day and "heart for intellect" is just another way of saying "faith for knowledge". The quote was for me was the proverbial straw!

Do I have certainty? Yes I do ;)

[Erfael]

Sure mate, I'll do my best to answer. The quote is from page 118. It hit a nerve because it is a very narrow view of what is involved in faith. Some people like to think that when you have faith, you have given away thought and reason, hence a thirst for knowledge. Not true! I very much like to know how things work. I trust God = faith, God also gave me a brain so I use it. So really the only part of the quote I am taking issue with is the faith for knowledge part! I'll take wisdom over cunning any day and "heart for intellect" is just another way of saying "faith for knowledge". The quote was for me was the proverbial straw!

Do I have certainty? Yes I do ;)

I'm not trying to stir, either, but I think you may be reading things into the quote as a result of your previous conversations with Scott. Even going back and reading that section, I don't feel that he's saying anything bad about Inrau, the Temples, or faith in general. I take that particular "faith for knowledge" to be knowledge that the Mandate could have given him versus that faith he lives with as a priest. As a priest, he has faith that things can be better and such, while as a Mandate Schoolman he can only have knowledge of how terrible the world is. Or from another angle, he's given up knowledge of sorcery for his faith. I just don't take that quote as saying he turned himself into a "totally irrational, thoughtless person, who knows nothing other than their narrow faith," and that's certainly not the picture of Inrau that I get when I read his sections. He has doubts. He's willing to look at the faith around him to see what is really going on. Of course, you're free to read and interpret in any way you see fit, but I didn't get a particularly anti-religious vibe off of that quote even after approaching it with your perspective in mind.

It is also deeply psychological, of course, delving into the inner workings of each character and pitting differing views against each other. Rather than the trappings of fantasy, Scott goes for the mindset. If you’re a writer and you want to study how character pov can be used, especially in illuminating and falsely illuminating other characters...

This was one of the things that sort of picked at my brain as a read it, but never really put into words. With a lot of authors you know everything you read is "the Truth" as far as their world goes. Even if someone is mistaken about something, "the Truth" is quickly revealed and you get to go along knowing that they're mistaken. There was a lot of "illuminating and falsely illuminating" going on in TDTCB, and I really liked it. You'll get chapters early on from Xerius that lay out the way the world works (according to Xerius) and go along for a time with that world view. Then in someone else's chapter later, maybe even in dealing with something completely different you'll find a little kernel of info that if you think about it for minute says "Xerius wasn't quite right about that 200 pages back." I'd need to dig around for some specific examples, but that's the vibe I got from a lot of the book. The same thing would happen with characters, a subtle shifting of perspective on a character through someone else's thoughts. I found those aspects to be some of the most interesting about the book.

Xerius noticed Kellhus nod at Skeaos right before his little speach that swung things around to Cnaiur.

Yeah, that's about what I thought. So I maintain that that's an awfully tiny thing for the rediscovery of the consult to hinge upon. Not that there's a problem with that, but Xerius seemed to go way over the top on that one. Talk about insecure (justifiably so in this case).


Thoughts on non-men, Moenghus, Maithanet, etc.:

I've only read book one so far, and I can't decide what to think about all these relationships. I'm sure they'll come clear in the future, but for now it's all just guesswork for me. I have a nagging suspicion that Maithanet=Moenghus, but no proof of that (did Kellhus decide he could see the Few also?). With his "powers" Moenghus would certainly have been able to manipulate the world into this holy war, manipulate the Chishaurim into killing the Scarlet Spires' leader, manipulate the Spires into joining up, use Skeaos (if he has the face-crabs working for him, too) to get the emperor to send Conphas to fight the Scylvendi, use Kellhus through dreams to get Cnaiur (who he prepared years ago) to come be the general, etc. Again, no proof, but I can almost see Moenghus pulling all the strings of everyone on the entire cast.

I also suspect that the Consult=the Non-men. The bird-Consult that was talking to Sarcellus was the same one that interrogated Esmi, so they can change shape. But as far as any really good ideas that can stand up to scrutiny, I'm flat out there.

[Rob B]

But by the time I got to the first chapter, I realized I’d been given a thorough briefing on what this imaginary world was like and substantial background information, which was rather a neat trick. (Although okay, I did peek at the glossaries in the back.)
To quote from my review: I jokingly hesitate to truly call this a work of fantasy considering how absolutely convincing this novel reads as a historical account-a historical account of a land at war....
...There is much depth to this world, glimpses and hints are dropped in places that only serve to give a slight indication of the history of Eärwa. From the opening pages, we are shown a world 2,000 years after an apocalypse. As importantly, a world with a rich history prior to that apocalyptic event. One thing I often enjoy seeing in an author's work is resonance, whether it be resonance within the novel or work itself or with outside works of myth and what have you. Here, Bakker shows the deep echoes of the past of his world, of the possible future in both referring to the Apocolyptic past as well as the quotes that open each chapter.


It is also deeply psychological, of course, delving into the inner workings of each character and pitting differing views against each other. Rather than the trappings of fantasy, Scott goes for the mindset. If you’re a writer and you want to study how character pov can be used, especially in illuminating and falsely illuminating other characters, Scott is a good guy to study. (Not that he doesn’t have bloodthirsty action too.) There are numerous echoes of our past (and current) history in the exploration of how leaders sway others and lead armies into battle, yet the story stands on its own rather than just as allegory. You’ll catch whiffs of numerous cultures – Byzantine, Arabic, ancient Asia, but they’ve been hammered into a more concentrated, battle-weary landscape. All I can say, is that for the most part, I agree. There are a few authors who put their readers into the heads of the characters, Martin of course comes to mind as the best. Scott is easily on par in this respect. I really felt Akka's character the most.



Kellhaus – For me, Kellhaus’ inner philosophy natterings do bog down the pacing a bit. But. The flashbacks of Kellhaus’ monk training, while a little routine, are smartly done, and Kellhaus’ anxieties about his father, and his battle of wits with some of the other characters – chiefly Cnaiur – are deftly handled and great fun to read. Who knew madness could be such an obstacle to mind control? And come on, you’ve got to love that the savior of the story is a trained sociopath. (Although the historic parallels may leave you a little queasy.) So I made my peace with him somewhere in the middle of the book and now enjoy watching his campaigns. (I don’t think Scott wants anyone to be particularly peaceful about any of his characters, though.) Kellhus made me think quite a bit. As for his campaigns, well, this was only the first book. Just wait (says the guy who read all three books).

I can't think of a first novel that really left it all out on the ice (to borrow a hockey term) the way Scott did here. I felt nothing was held back.

[Dawnstorm]

I've only read book one so far, and I can't decide what to think about all these relationships. I'm sure they'll come clear in the future, but for now it's all just guesswork for me. I have a nagging suspicion that Maithanet=Moenghus, but no proof of that (did Kellhus decide he could see the Few also?). With his "powers" Moenghus would certainly have been able to manipulate the world into this holy war, manipulate the Chishaurim into killing the Scarlet Spires' leader, manipulate the Spires into joining up, use Skeaos (if he has the face-crabs working for him, too) to get the emperor to send Conphas to fight the Scylvendi, use Kellhus through dreams to get Cnaiur (who he prepared years ago) to come be the general, etc. Again, no proof, but I can almost see Moenghus pulling all the strings of everyone on the entire cast.

It's possible that Maithanet=Möenghus, but I hope not. That would bear the danger of degenerating into a huge conspiracy theory. Could work, too, though.

I also suspect that the Consult=the Non-men. The bird-Consult that was talking to Sarcellus was the same one that interrogated Esmi, so they can change shape. But as far as any really good ideas that can stand up to scrutiny, I'm flat out there.

Thought so, too. Especially, because of the parallel of "non-men" and "no-god"; but now I tend more towards cultural bias in naming of whoever named them.

The non-men we see (the same one?), one in the prologue, the other killing Geshrunni, appear a lot more... I don't know... vain, less directed. The consult appear to have more purpose, more hatred. I tend to think that the non-men (what are they? mercenary godlings? immortal men?) work for the consult. But I'm not sure they're reliable.