[Dawnstorm]

All his characters are flawed; there are no saints so that, much like government elections, you are always choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Interesting. You feel the need to choose?

I just reacted to the characters on a one on one basis.

No saints? What about Inrau? Xinemus? They come quite close, I'd say. (Unless you equate power, too.)

[Matrim]

I just finished reading The Darkness that Comes Before, came to check out the old threads about it on these forums and found out that it's the current choice for the Book Club. So I thought that I had to add my two cents. :)

I really liked the various factions and their endless intrigues, people ready to everything to gain some advantage over their rivals. Like the Emperor who was ready to betray the Holy War and stop short of Shimeh because he had a deal with the Kianese.
The characters are well developed, although I do think Bakker could have come up with better names for them. ;) Akka was probably my favourite one.
Interesting philosophy, I liked it more than let's say the philosophy in Erikson's Midnight Tides, here it seemed to be less forced. I really liked Acahamian and Proyas' conversation about religion and certainty and also some of the quotes in the beginning of the chapters.
The battle of the Scylvendy and the Nansur army was quite impressive, I hope there are more battles in the next volumes.
The role of the sorcerers in the world is just as I like it - they are really powerful but also vulnerable.
The glimpses and pieces of ancient history are really intriguing, I'd like to learn more and more of how the battle 2000 years ago unfolded.
I like how the author keep the readers in the dark, I really have troubles trying to predict what will happen in the next book.

Some complaints:

- Is it only me who is a bit annoyed by Kellhus and the other Dunayin. They seem a bit too perfect, they can read every expression and manipulate people with incredible ease. I think I would have bought it easier if they were shown to use some kind of magic, not just lifetime of learning and training.
I don't know why but Cnaiur bores me, maybe because I am not a great fan of barbarians who consider violence to be the answer to just about everything. Since he is not interesting to me, I could hardly care less if he kills Kellhus' father or not.

[Luke_B]

I started this but my initial enthusiasm soon waned. I think Scott is certainly a talented writer but found this much too slow and turgid for my tastes. I found neither the characters or the setting interesting, and have hit a hump at about half way that I can't seem to get passed.

[FicusFan]

Ok, this took me most of the month to read. I started it, but it couldn't keep my interest, so it became a bathroom read. :eek: I will say it was written beautifully, the prose was smooth as silk, but while RSB could have made the phone book readable, this was close to phone book boring.

I thought the naming conventions were awful, as was the never-ending detail-diarrhea. It was James Mitchneresque to point to a hill, and then list every name, every people, every battle ever held there. All in those terrible unpronounceable names.

There was so much pointless stuff that the book should have been sold with a machete. It was one of the worst cases of info-dump I have ever seen. I am sure that it was valuable to have developed this stuff, because it gave shape and reality to the story, but only a fraction of it needed to actually appear in the book, the rest was/is backstory.

I didn't care about any of the characters, and it wasn't because they were not solely good or evil, it was just a boringly told story. It also seemed that when one thread would threaten to get interesting, the story would change to kill any spark of interest, and then change to another thread.

I thought the characters were well drawn, if boring because you can only take so much wallowing and whining, for the type of people he was trying to portray. Except for some glaring errors, at least to me. I thought that Cnaiur just up and leaving his tribe made no sense. Even though he hated Moen he was so hyper about being manipulated by Kell that the idea he would just leave his tribe, women, horses, stock with no thought to anything that might happen in his absence, or who might be giving him the desire, didn't ring true. I also thought the idea of taking Serwe was wrong. On the way back from a raid yes, but not as baggage at the start of an unknown upcoming battle.

Then Esmi, who is supposed to be smart, and a whore who has managed to live to be 31, and that she has no suspicions when Sarcellus just magically rides in to save her. Even if she didn't know why, her survival skills would have kicked in and made her uneasy around him. And she not only didn't worry about him, she told him about Akka -- it just seemed wrong.

I also agree that there is no reason, in a fantasy, to have all the women as breeders or sex-workers.

I thought focusing on the behind-the-scenes politics which are the reason for big events was interesting, as was the conflict between religion and magic (technology). The internal fight inside characters between doing what is right and what is easier or safer, between what you wish and what is real was also interesting.

I agree that Kell was too perfect with his skill. I thought that the emperor picked on his minister because at the meeting he saw him exchanging looks with Kell. The emperor didn't know he was a magician/spy, he was just very suspicious and thought maybe the minister was going to betray him (as in assasinate). Very Byzantine.

It seemed to be very eastern influenced, and that is always interesting. I just think the story telling was very lacking, perhaps too much telling and not enough showing ? I don't know it just didn't grab me.

I have never read any Tom Clancy, but RSB could take lessons from Allen Drury.

[Jack]

This reminded me of something else I really quite liked about this book (not sure why it reminded me of it....the whole leaving everything out on the ice thing, I guess). So many of the grand-scope fantasy works out there really draw up most of the lines from the very beginning. You know who is good and who is bad and who is working for whom, for the most part. This book successfully left me with no clue at all who is doing what, really, by the end of it (except maybe Akka vs. the Consult). But it left me without that clue in a good way, much in that historical chronicle way. This beast could go any way still, and I find that very interesting.

Lots of things happened, but none of them really closed off roads. So often, in order to go down one path an author has to close off other paths. TDTCB was so rife with story potential that I feel like Scott can go any direction from there, without introducing anything new from this point on, without bringing any new pieces to the board. So many authors get around this closing off of roads with "the bloat." They make the story bigger and bigger and bigger after the fact because they closed off all of their roads early on. I think that the setting up of the pieces in this book was one of the best aspects of it and what makes it one of the best openings to a series that I have read. It was just so well-handled, I thought.

Okay, just so Ficus doesn't get the final word on the book before the month ends (just teasing you Ficus :D).

First, I wholeheartedly agree with what Erfael has written here concerning Bakker keeping all the plot threads open. However, we seem to talk about the traps your typical genre writer falls in frequently. Straying from the book just a tad, I would like to think we here at sffworld.com are above being accepting of these mistakes, such as, as stated in the quote above, fattening up a book to keep a series going after most of the vital plot threads have ended, or for that matter, using delay tactics to stretch a thread to the point of breaking (the classic example of this being the Richard & Zed paradox).

Since I started drawing recommendations from this site, I have not read any author who falls back on these kinds of devices - books by Clarke, Gaiman, Mieville, Bakker, heck, even the early Moorcock works I've read, are all masterfully crafted stories with a clear beginning, middle, and end (the latter beginning, middle, and end especially true with Clarke; I salute her three book division of Jon Strange) and therefore do not feel drawn out. Jon Strange may have been fed fatty foods, but not because it was a slim runner who would otherwise reach his desination quickly, but because the plot itself made it a delightfully large volume vessel who was hungry for more mass - hunry for more, MORE IRRELEVANT FACTS, I TELL YOU, NOW!

My point being that complimenting Bakker for keeping the story open and thus keeping us interested is like complimenting a driver every day he or she does not get in a wreck - its just something you are supposed to do. Thankfully, I don't have to read authors who make these mistakes frequently, as there exists a plethora of wonderful spec fic out there.

Sorry for that tangent. To build on what Erfael said, he stated that perhaps the only clear conflict and thus goal was Achamian vs. The Consult and thus Achamian somehow stopping The Consult. This is true, but it makes me ask myself: well, what the heck is The Consult really up to? Who are these guys? No-God? Wha... huh? Apocalypse? Why? And that last customer Esmi had when she was still in the brothel, the one with the black... fluids. WHAT THE HECK IS UP WITH THAT GUY? WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON??!

My point being that even with that one clearly defined conflict, at least one of those party's conflicts is still murky, which forces me to read on.

Very true, but Scott manages to give all of his characters a deep passion for what they are doing, even if they are unsure of their final goals. This may sound strange, I know, but the right words aren't forming now, I suppose. All the characters are very motiviated and emotionally driven.

I love this, and the first thing I asked myself when I read it was, "Am I passionate?" to which I responded to myself, "Well, yes, yes I am," which was followed by, "Are you 100% sure of your final goals?" to which I replied to myself, "..."

Which in turn led me to feel how real the characters are, in my opinion; also that I shouldn't be carrying on conversations with myself. Think about the characters you have "loved", in the sense that we love a fictional character, throughout your reading career. Have you ever "loved" a real person the way you "love" a fictional character? I have not. Keeping that in mind, the general consensus I've gather from around sffworld.com is that none of the characters are likable - I believe this is a compliment to Scott in regards to how he manages keeping his characters real.

Comments? Critiques? Observations? Darts to throw? Balloons to pop?

[oasis seeker]

I read the Darkness That Comes Before and enjoyed it very much.

I'm enjoying very much how the fantasy genre is breaking loose of the "tried and true" scenarios/plots and the simple "wide-eyed, sickeningly good and noble" protagonist who never ever thinks a bad thought or feels any of the baser desires tht all normal humans feel at one time or another.

My only quibble, and this is a personal one, is the structure of the book. The first part and the last 1/3 were great. I just felt the middle was too slow (too much introspection, not anough action/plot movement) and some of those who posted here felt it also. But I point out that it is a personal taste. I was eager for the crusade too actually start, for the story to reveal the villains and the heroes, for things to gel and progress. I'm an impatient bastard, I guess :)

Has anyone else noticed how we have a man with all the right motivations, desires and traits of a hero but who is totally ineffective, and a man who is extremely effective but who has none of the redeeming qualities of a hero?

[Jack]

Has anyone else noticed how we have a man with all the right motivations, desires and traits of a hero but who is totally ineffective, and a man who is extremely effective but who has none of the redeeming qualities of a hero?

Wow oasis, I love this! Its something I'd turned over in my head, but never solidified as a true thought, and therefore was not able to put it as simply as you've done here.

Still can't wait for TTT.

[FicusFan]

I think most of the people in the book were ineffective, which is perhaps one of the main problems with telling a good tale. If you have characters who are constantly whining, and then dithering and lacking in any dynamism you have something that doesn't flow.

I did think the idea of Akka having a personal connection to the first war, and dreaming/living it was an interesting twist on the Bene Gesserit (Dune) concept of being able to access the lives/memories/experiences of all those who went before.

I think Akka and the Schoolmen as the living embodiment of history took on the role of Cassandras in their world, but the real lesson of Cassandra is not that no one listened or believed, it is that no one was willing to change their behavior regardless of the risks of disaster. They can't change who they are, what they want, or how they operate just because someone says they are doomed.

I also liked the use of black semen to suggest anti-life.

[werewolfv2]

I really enjoyed it. I tend to blast right through books but with this one I took my time. I could read 50 pages and get my fill for the evening.

[Severn]

I think most of the people in the book were ineffective, which is perhaps one of the main problems with telling a good tale. If you have characters who are constantly whining, and then dithering and lacking in any dynamism you have something that doesn't flow.

And the other side of the coin is that the whining and dithering makes them seem more human - more fallible, less confident, afraid. Which I think describes all of the main characters, and probably why I've responded to them so well. There's nothing I like less than an infallible, heroic and completely purposeful character. I just can't relate, and can't believe in them.