[Tartaros]

I’m not sure if I’m of the minority opinion, but to me Brandin derives more emotion from me, than the bitter freedom fighters, which I feel is simply a ramification of flawed writing rather than intentional. The flaw I find in all of Kay’s writing, and which glares most prominently in Tigana, is the failure to show instead of telling. Guy consistently reverts to lecturing narration, where he attempts to further instill the emotional symbolism or trauma of an even, such as…."There was a silence. They could hear shouting from the streets below now, and the sound of running footsteps. . . . Devin was suddenly claimed by an image, another of his intrusions of memory: that campfire in Ferraut, Alessan playing songs of Senzio for Erlein, an enraged shadow by the river. There were so many layers here, so many charges of meaning."

To me this simple mistake when repetitively distributed throughout, well it can become quite an annoyance, for the most part snapping you out of the story. Tigana does have some redeemable features, but even those features are marred with distinct flaws. The plot is interesting, and the climax and ending are nearly brilliant, and I say nearly only because it seems the plots progression is like dutifully plodding from place to place with the occasional intermittence of a newly introduced character. Tigana had so much potential, it just didn’t execute.

[FicusFan]

I think I finally figured out what bothered me so much about the story and the 'good guys' leaving their families and going off dedicated to this perfect idea of Tigana. It came to me the other night watching the news about the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.

I realized that Kay's good guys were exactly the same as the terrorists in both Saudi and the 9/11 attacks, only the details were different.

You have bitter, revenge filled people who are dedicated to an idea or ideal that is more important than their lives, their families, the lives of others and reality. They will sacrifice anything for it, and they feel because they have been 'wronged' that they can do or use anyone to right the wrong.

Maybe thats why I just couldn't spend anymore time with the book.

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by FicusFan
I realized that Kay's good guys were exactly the same as the terrorists in both Saudi and the 9/11 attacks, only the details were different.

...

You have bitter, revenge filled people who are dedicated to an idea or ideal that is more important than their lives, their families, the lives of others and reality. They will sacrifice anything for it, and they feel because they have been 'wronged' that they can do or use anyone to right the wrong.

Maybe thats why I just couldn't spend anymore time with the book.

I think the paralell you draw is probably pretty accurate.
Tigana is a portrait of violent nationalism...

It's worth considering that one minor difference would be that many terrorists / freedom fighters in our world have the support and goodwill of large sectors of their community, whole movements, whereas the characters in 'Tigana' necessarily act mostly alone.

*editted slightly for clarity*

[Nevyn]

Lay down and die , isn't that how things should be done ? Seems the word genocide might be a little bit strong but I'll use it anyhow , effectively that is what Brandin was trying to achieve . But you think that the " good guys " diddn't have the right to fight with what means were available , sad I say , in the fact that everything you say that our heroes are abusing to get revenge probably won't exist after a handful more years . Might does not = right ! And as some of the present day tuggers would say " collateral damage "is the price that must be paid for freedom !!

[Nimea]

Okay now, my thoughts on Tigana.

Mmh, I still can't decide between 2 and 3 points out of 5.
Huh? you say. Yeah, I mean it.

Although the novel took me in quite quickly and I found the prose quite well at most times, by the end of the first book (German edition was published in two volumes, first one called 'Der Fluch' = The Curse, the second one is called 'Der Hofnarr' = The Court Jester. Oh, and reading blurbs on German fantasy novels is a russian roulet, really. :rolleyes: ) I often had to sigh and role my eyes.
My problem were not the descriptions, not the characters leaving their families. It was GGK's way to try to tell me again and again and again how wonderful those characters were deep inside, or how tortured or whatever. He described things that he should not have because for me he destroyed the atmosphere he desperately tried to create.
Well, just like Tartaros wrote.

I liked Devin at the beginning, I thought that he should get his ass kicked by page 400. Ooooh, I am so young, and the others are so experienced and have so much wisdom and I first need to live through so much more years. That really unnerved me. Or Erlein, the poor sod. He had a point by being furious about what Alessan did to him, yet he rather quickly did protest only out of spite and was oh so impressed with the others.
That theme about free will was handled not very well in my eyes. Yes, Alessan gave him free at the end, but I never really felt that Alessan really understood what he had done even so GGK tried to establish his compassion.
The potential was there but sorry, he just doesn't have the style that goes with my taste. (I try to work on my own writing, so that I learn to show people the "magic", the little details, the relationships etc without telling it and hammering it into every reader's mind.)

What about the romances? Do you think they were handled in a good way? Hardly, most of the time. Like Catriana and Alessan - aaargh. Could have been something, I even almost liked Catriana . . .
And yeah, the sex in the castle. *harhar* I don't have anything against sex scenes - I like GRRM ;) - but I just don't know what he wanted to tell me with it. It did not get me any closer to Devin, the story or whatever.

The ending. Mmh, okay. Rushed? Maybe.

And if it was so bad an experience, than why do I think about giving it a nice 3 points? Because it has some elements that were quite well: the curse itself for example, the idea to do something like that - even if the nationalism is another tough matter to chew on.
I liked parts of the characters, liked some of their inner conflict, liked some of the political intrigues. And as I said, I was way into the book before I started to read slower and slower and slower.
But did I mention how much it rattled my nerves to read of their 'love' for each other. I don't like to read about companions suddenly to confess their respect and love in a peachy way.

Some words about terrorism: Are they really terrorists? - Somehow I don't think so.
Yes, they burned a barn and killed soldiers. Yes, they risked war on innocent people (Senzio) - but did they terrorize another country, innocent people, did they with full intend do as much 'collateral damage' as possible to spread terror?
They tried to get their home back, but they were fully intend to free the whole Hand! They were right to call Brandin and eh, the other one dictators and oppressors.
They were right to fight for freedom. If the way they did it was always right and good, is another and precarious matter.

So now, sorry for rambling like that - but I am still trying to get my mind to a final opinion on Tigana, which is not very easy.

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by Ouroboros


It's worth considering that one minor difference would be that many terrorists / freedom fighters in our world have the support and goodwill of large sectors of their community, whole movements, whereas the characters in 'Tigana' necessarily act mostly alone.

*editted slightly for clarity*

But pretty much everyone in the book (as far as I got) was helpful to the party, and interested in overthrowing the 'tyrants'. Some seemed afraid to get involved because of their fear of death and dismemberment, but I don't remember them being hated or even ignored by their own people.

I think the captive wizard was uninterested in being liberated because he already thought he was free, but to me he seemed the exception.

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by Nevyn
Lay down and die , isn't that how things should be done ? Seems the word genocide might be a little bit strong but I'll use it anyhow , effectively that is what Brandin was trying to achieve.

I would have to disagree. Life in Tigana was tough and the occupation seemed to be brutal but they were a long way from genocide.

Brandon was not trying to achive the death of the people of Tigana. He had magic and an army -- no way he would have had to hang around in Chiara all those years waiting for the last born to die off, if he was intent on killing them all. What he wanted to kill was the idea, past, future, and spirit of Tigana. Probably what he felt they took from him when they killed his son, though why he thought he would not have to pay a price for invading another land is never explained. He wanted to humiliate, and subjugate them, death would have been too easy.

There are more options in terms of resisting than 'laying down and dying' or 'becoming that which you are fighting'. If you adopt the tactics of the enemy to defend yourself, they effectively win because you have helped them to destroy yourself - even if you win militarily.


Originally posted by Nevyn
But you think that the " good guys " diddn't have the right to fight with what means were available , sad I say , in the fact that everything you say that our heroes are abusing to get revenge probably won't exist after a handful more years . Might does not = right !

That is exactly my point ! Just because you can do something, and you think yourself the aggrieved party does not make it right.

Look at the army of Tigana in the prolog. They knew they were going to die and lose, but they kept faith with who they were -- which was the good guys. They didn't suddenly start acting like the tyrant's army: sneaking around, looting, raping, killing.


Originally posted by Nevyn
And as some of the present day tuggers would say " collateral damage "is the price that must be paid for freedom !!

You'll notice that those who invented that line of reasoning never seem to volunteer themselves or their families to pay the price for freedom which they deem so necessary. Its always someone else.

There is another even older saying "From time to time the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots" -- actively choosing to sacrifice your life for a good cause (being a patriot) is a hell of a long way from saying its ok to blow up small children hiding in terror, because you have decided that you are in the right in terms of the big picture.

What sort of malignant growth of a tree would the result of 'collateral damage' visit on the world ? What sort of Tigana will Alessan be capable of resurrecting ?

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by FicusFan

I would have to disagree. Life in Tigana was tough and the occupation seemed to be brutal but they were a long way from genocide.

Brandon was not trying to achive the death of the people of Tigana. ... What he wanted to kill was the idea, past, future, and spirit of Tigana.

Actually under international law, genocide is broadly defined as the destruction of a community, and there are a number of possible methods of accomplishing this. It doesn't have to mean a 'final solution' or mass murder, it can be anything that eradicates cultural difference allowing the community to be assimilated into another or what have you. The attempted 'erasing' of Tigana would consitute genocide under our laws.


There are more options in terms of resisting than 'laying down and dying' or 'becoming that which you are fighting'. If you adopt the tactics of the enemy to defend yourself, they effectively win because you have helped them to destroy yourself - even if you win militarily.


The idea that a small nation or conquered people must 'fight honorably' on the field of battle against their agressors is to me ludicrous. Unconventional warfare gained my country's independence, and plenty of others.


You'll notice that those who invented that line of reasoning never seem to volunteer themselves or their families to pay the price for freedom which they deem so necessary. Its always someone else.

Dunno mate, history is littered with nationalist martyrs who voluntarily laid their lives down for their causes. We've been seeing a lot of it lately- those guys who blow themselves up, and fly planes into buildings?

There is another even older saying "From time to time the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots" -- actively choosing to sacrifice your life for a good cause (being a patriot) is a hell of a long way from saying its ok to blow up small children hiding in terror, because you have decided that you are in the right in terms of the big picture.

Blowing up small kids is horrendous, but do you think 'terrorists' are the only ones to do it? It's not like legitimate governments haven't done the same thing. They just have better P.R.

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Actually under international law, genocide is broadly defined as the destruction of a community, and there are a number of possible methods of accomplishing this. It doesn't have to mean a 'final solution' or mass murder, it can be anything that eradicates cultural difference allowing the community to be assimilated into another or what have you. The attempted 'erasing' of Tigana would consitute genocide under our laws.

I am not up on international law.

I use genocide to mean mass murder, because anything else is potentially survivable, and therefore not genocide. I suspect under International Law that little catch means genocide in non-mass murder situations only applies after they have actually completed the deed. Anything else would only be attempted genocide.


Originally posted by Ouroboros
[B]The idea that a small nation or conquered people must 'fight honorably' on the field of battle against their agressors is to me ludicrous. Unconventional warfare gained my country's independence, and plenty of others..

The US too. We were not above sneaking around and shooting at them from behind the trees and the stonewalls, when honorable armies always 'lined up in the open and fought'. I did not say they had to fight honorably, I said they had to fight in a way that allowed them to stay true to who they were.

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Dunno mate, history is littered with nationalist martyrs who voluntarily laid their lives down for their causes. We've been seeing a lot of it lately- those guys who blow themselves up, and fly planes into buildings?

No dude, those are not patriots, those are the islamic version of the collateral damage folks who think anything is ok if they decide the cause is just.

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Blowing up small kids is horrendous, but do you think 'terrorists' are the only ones to do it? It's not like legitimate governments haven't done the same thing. They just have better P.R.

Yes and your point is ? They did it first so its ok for us to do it too? When you were growing up didn't your mother ever explain how faulty that logic was, with the 'jumping off the cliff scenario '?

And all this relates to Tigana how ?

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by FicusFan
I am not up on international law.

I use genocide to mean mass murder, because anything else is potentially survivable, and therefore not genocide. I suspect under International Law that little catch means genocide in non-mass murder situations only applies after they [bad guys] have actually completed the deed. Anything else would only be attempted genocide.

I know what you meant, but I am saying that your definition of genocide is not actually what the word means. It is much more open than straightforwardly sending people to the wall.

As far as 'catches' in the international law : attempted genocide is also a crime, obviously. The reason the definition is quite broad is to recognise the fact that genocide can also be accomplished in more subtle ways than what people normally think. You can wipe out a community by waging a cultural war against them, stripping them of what makes them different, and then absorbing them. This is in effect what Brandin attempts in his erasure of Tigana from people's minds.


No dude, those are not patriots, those are the islamic version of the collateral damage folks who think anything is ok if they decide the cause is just.

As far as they're concerned they're not only patriots, but full-blown heroes. Many people in their communities would agree with them. Relativity is a bitch :(


Yes and your point is ? They did it first so its ok for us to do it too?

I never implied I was saying anything about justifcation- didn't your mother ever teach you to read closely before replying? :D

What I did say was only that hypocrisy is rife in terms of the way western governments such as the U.S demonise the activities of 'terrorists', while they themselves on a regular basis engage in activities which are just as destructive and indeed possibly engender an even greater gross loss of life.


And all this relates to Tigana how ?

We're talking about genocide, occupation, resistance and broadly speaking we're drawing paralells between the events in Tigana and those in our world, as Kay possibly intended.

Is that clear enough?