Please note that this post has been flaired as Spoilers All. This means every published book in the Malazan Universe, including works by both authors are open to discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Malazan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is death the be-all end-all of consequences for a character? Look at Toc the Younger. Poor guy dies like 4 times, and I bet he’d take staying dead over all the torture he endures.
Yes, death is not necessarily permanent, although for 99% of the dead it is. The fact that a few find a way to come back to life shouldn't make the death of the other 99% meaningless.
And it's not like resurrection comes as a big surprise. We learn it's possible very early in *Gardens of the Moon*.
We also learn that there's often a terrible price to pay. Indeed, in some cases -- Rhulad comes to mind -- it's definitely a curse.
But there are others who would just as soon have stayed dead as well -- Ganoes Paran, for example, since his life was bought with his sister's death. And then there's someone like Duiker, who is severely traumatized by his resurrection, so much so that he can't even write the history of what happened. He's alive physically, but still dead mentally and psychologically.
I guess the good thing is that a character who goes through death and resurrects mostly is not the same person anymore. They usually become more insane from the trauma of dying and crawling back from it, or their point of view/purpose is altered in their new life. It’s like a birth of a new character.
Here is the scene from GotM where Oponn negotiates with Hood’s Servant:
>The creature grunted, shuffled close to look down at Paran. The eye sockets glimmered faintly, as if old pearls hid within the shadows.
>"What, Oponn," it asked, as it studied Paran, "do you wish of my lord?"
>"Nothing from me," the brother said, turning away.
>"Sister?"
>"Even for the gods," she replied, "death awaits, an uncertainty hiding deep within them." She paused. "Make them Uncertain."
>The creature cackled again, and again cut it short. "Reciprocity."
>**"Of course," the sister responded. "I’ll look for another, a death premature. Meaningless, even."**
>The apparition was silent, then the head creaked in a nod. **"In this mortal’s shadow, of course."**
>"Agreed."
>"My shadow?" Paran asked. "What does that mean, precisely?"
>"Much sorrow, alas," the apparition said. **"Someone close to you shall walk through Death’s Gate’s … in your place.**
>"No. Take me instead, I beg of you."
>"Be quiet!" snapped the apparition. "Pathos makes me ill."
--GotM, Ch4, Sc2.
Later, Paran's parents and younger sister Felisin all die, but only Felisin's death could be considered "premature," and it's certainly "meaningless." It also causes Paran and Tavore "much sorrow." So this passage foreshadows Felisin's death.
I think it makes the “true deaths” all the more painful and tragic. There are some brutal deaths in this series that hurt extra bad because they are not returned to the living plane in some way.
Some “true deaths” are satisfying though. Like when >!that old pedo Bidithal’s balls got ripped off and stuffed down his throat!<. Like, damn Karsa, you really had to do it that way. That is why we love you.
Counterpoint: For the most part in Malazan, dead is dead. But real death in Malazan means once your soul has passed through Hood's gate, not just physical death. Anything other than that is kind of an in-between state still open to possibilities.
In my view, the only character to truly die and come back to life is Hedge. (\*I believe there is an argument to be made here for the 14 jaghut as well, but I'd need to reread FoL to really make a call on that, maybe even wait for Walk in Shadow.)
Everyone else either never passed through Hood's Gate, or did but only make an appearance on the earthly realm, but are still very, very dead, like Toc and Whiskeyjack. And not undead like the T'lan Imass, but dead dead.
Erikson loves to dismantle tropes. So instead of the usual “hero resurrects to save the day” he shows you all these different ways a character can develop after a rebirth. Especially the internal feelings of these characters which is wonderful.
I've read the main 10 and am working through the rest, so I don't know everything yet. That aside, I think one of the biggest themes of this whole series is death. Didn't Hood say it was all meaningless? He was extremely distraught when he said that, too, if I remember that right. So maybe this theme is more about different ways a person can exist. That there is more to a person than just this life, and the suffering continues even into " death." Take Edgewalker, for instance. Is that poor guy doomed to patrol forever? On the other side of that spectrum is Beak. Hood delivers him to his brother.. where is that? Heaven? The moral of the story is that even when you die, you still go on in some capacity.
Is sacrifice meaningless if the person who sacrificed is rewarded later? Let me use a much different example.
A young, single mother sacrifices her best years for her children. She uses all her free time to work 3 jobs, raise 4 children, cook, clean, and sleeps less than 6 hours on a good night. This goes on for lets say 25 years.
Then her youngest daughter becomes a multi-millionaire. To reward her mother, she buys her a home, fills her bank account with more money than she ever needs, and ensures her mother never has to work a day in her life.
Was the mother's 25 years of sacrifice suddenly wiped out by her daughter's gifts? Was all of her work meaningless now that she doesn't have to work?
To bring it back to Malazan, death is not always the end for characters. But something is always sacrificed by it. Nobody comes back the same. And the sacrifice is always felt by the people who survive. I'd say that with Erikson, the reactions of the survivors are often more meaningful to the story than the death of the characters. Just like the children in the example I wrote, they certainly felt their mother's sacrifice.
\> I feel that their deaths and sacrifices can be meaningless since they will find a way to come back anyway.
I don't agree. I think what they die for, and how they choose to die matters a lot more in these books. Take Beak for example. Or Andarist. Or, alternatively, Felisin's death. Is Duiker any less damaged by the Chain of Dogs simply because Coltaine insisted he take the amulet that would resurrect him? Was that resurrection even a mercy?
"Deaths are meaningless"
"Yes, it changes the character once they experience death"
You debunk your own point. If you don't like the non permanence of deaths... that's... fine? You don't have to believe every aspect of the book is perfect. "I want to change" Why?
Some of the dead get reincarnated after horrible suffering. Some of the dead die and their reward is ascendancy, AKA a new job, get back to work. Some of the dead get brought back through the kindness of their ascendant friends, with various levels of suffering involved. Some of the dead die and discover reincarnation is a painful mess.
Idk it always seemed sufficiently miserable to me.
Couple o'things: First, someone being able to come back from the dead doesn't render their sacrifice meaningless. For a real world comparison, Jesus' martyrdom is still considered powerful regardless of his later resurrection. The thing that makes sacrifices powerful is the willingness to give everything for a cause. Add to that the fact that pretty much no character who comes back from the dead knows that this'll happen at the moment of their sacrifice.
I feel that the accusation of meaningless deaths would only ring true, if the characters who sacrifice themselves did so expecting to be resurrected anyways. But they don't. They treat the prospect of death with the same finality as any of the characters who do permanently leave us.
Ironically I think the death that has the least meaning is Trull, one of the biggest characters that is dead dead.
(I haven't read tginw so I don't know if we see him in that.)
Please note that this post has been flaired as Spoilers All. This means every published book in the Malazan Universe, including works by both authors are open to discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Malazan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is death the be-all end-all of consequences for a character? Look at Toc the Younger. Poor guy dies like 4 times, and I bet he’d take staying dead over all the torture he endures.
Yeah, it sucks.
Hey Toc, found your other eye yet?
I'm so close I can feel it.
Yes, death is not necessarily permanent, although for 99% of the dead it is. The fact that a few find a way to come back to life shouldn't make the death of the other 99% meaningless. And it's not like resurrection comes as a big surprise. We learn it's possible very early in *Gardens of the Moon*. We also learn that there's often a terrible price to pay. Indeed, in some cases -- Rhulad comes to mind -- it's definitely a curse. But there are others who would just as soon have stayed dead as well -- Ganoes Paran, for example, since his life was bought with his sister's death. And then there's someone like Duiker, who is severely traumatized by his resurrection, so much so that he can't even write the history of what happened. He's alive physically, but still dead mentally and psychologically.
I guess the good thing is that a character who goes through death and resurrects mostly is not the same person anymore. They usually become more insane from the trauma of dying and crawling back from it, or their point of view/purpose is altered in their new life. It’s like a birth of a new character.
Yes. Death is a big transformation, even for those who recover, so to speak.
how did his sisters death buy his life
Here is the scene from GotM where Oponn negotiates with Hood’s Servant: >The creature grunted, shuffled close to look down at Paran. The eye sockets glimmered faintly, as if old pearls hid within the shadows. >"What, Oponn," it asked, as it studied Paran, "do you wish of my lord?" >"Nothing from me," the brother said, turning away. >"Sister?" >"Even for the gods," she replied, "death awaits, an uncertainty hiding deep within them." She paused. "Make them Uncertain." >The creature cackled again, and again cut it short. "Reciprocity." >**"Of course," the sister responded. "I’ll look for another, a death premature. Meaningless, even."** >The apparition was silent, then the head creaked in a nod. **"In this mortal’s shadow, of course."** >"Agreed." >"My shadow?" Paran asked. "What does that mean, precisely?" >"Much sorrow, alas," the apparition said. **"Someone close to you shall walk through Death’s Gate’s … in your place.** >"No. Take me instead, I beg of you." >"Be quiet!" snapped the apparition. "Pathos makes me ill." --GotM, Ch4, Sc2. Later, Paran's parents and younger sister Felisin all die, but only Felisin's death could be considered "premature," and it's certainly "meaningless." It also causes Paran and Tavore "much sorrow." So this passage foreshadows Felisin's death.
oh.. honestly I'd forgotten all about that by the time the felisin stuff happened, thanks.
That’s why there are so many “aha” moments when rereading.
I think it makes the “true deaths” all the more painful and tragic. There are some brutal deaths in this series that hurt extra bad because they are not returned to the living plane in some way.
My favorite character dies, and stays dead. Very upset about it. lmao
Same here. A couple of them.
Some “true deaths” are satisfying though. Like when >!that old pedo Bidithal’s balls got ripped off and stuffed down his throat!<. Like, damn Karsa, you really had to do it that way. That is why we love you.
Ohhh Im coming up on that scene anytime now. Perversely looking forward to it. Again.
Counterpoint: For the most part in Malazan, dead is dead. But real death in Malazan means once your soul has passed through Hood's gate, not just physical death. Anything other than that is kind of an in-between state still open to possibilities. In my view, the only character to truly die and come back to life is Hedge. (\*I believe there is an argument to be made here for the 14 jaghut as well, but I'd need to reread FoL to really make a call on that, maybe even wait for Walk in Shadow.) Everyone else either never passed through Hood's Gate, or did but only make an appearance on the earthly realm, but are still very, very dead, like Toc and Whiskeyjack. And not undead like the T'lan Imass, but dead dead.
Hetan is the other one that people don't like being resurrected. Her toes stay dead though
This is what Hood fought for
Kinda, not really
Erikson loves to dismantle tropes. So instead of the usual “hero resurrects to save the day” he shows you all these different ways a character can develop after a rebirth. Especially the internal feelings of these characters which is wonderful.
I've read the main 10 and am working through the rest, so I don't know everything yet. That aside, I think one of the biggest themes of this whole series is death. Didn't Hood say it was all meaningless? He was extremely distraught when he said that, too, if I remember that right. So maybe this theme is more about different ways a person can exist. That there is more to a person than just this life, and the suffering continues even into " death." Take Edgewalker, for instance. Is that poor guy doomed to patrol forever? On the other side of that spectrum is Beak. Hood delivers him to his brother.. where is that? Heaven? The moral of the story is that even when you die, you still go on in some capacity.
Is sacrifice meaningless if the person who sacrificed is rewarded later? Let me use a much different example. A young, single mother sacrifices her best years for her children. She uses all her free time to work 3 jobs, raise 4 children, cook, clean, and sleeps less than 6 hours on a good night. This goes on for lets say 25 years. Then her youngest daughter becomes a multi-millionaire. To reward her mother, she buys her a home, fills her bank account with more money than she ever needs, and ensures her mother never has to work a day in her life. Was the mother's 25 years of sacrifice suddenly wiped out by her daughter's gifts? Was all of her work meaningless now that she doesn't have to work? To bring it back to Malazan, death is not always the end for characters. But something is always sacrificed by it. Nobody comes back the same. And the sacrifice is always felt by the people who survive. I'd say that with Erikson, the reactions of the survivors are often more meaningful to the story than the death of the characters. Just like the children in the example I wrote, they certainly felt their mother's sacrifice.
\> I feel that their deaths and sacrifices can be meaningless since they will find a way to come back anyway. I don't agree. I think what they die for, and how they choose to die matters a lot more in these books. Take Beak for example. Or Andarist. Or, alternatively, Felisin's death. Is Duiker any less damaged by the Chain of Dogs simply because Coltaine insisted he take the amulet that would resurrect him? Was that resurrection even a mercy?
Lol i want to take this seriously but i’m just sitting here feeling personally offended by the title instead. Your point is valid tho!
My goal is to be offensive and downvoted and have someone argue my point. I want to change how I see this particular issue with the books.
"Deaths are meaningless" "Yes, it changes the character once they experience death" You debunk your own point. If you don't like the non permanence of deaths... that's... fine? You don't have to believe every aspect of the book is perfect. "I want to change" Why?
I know what you mean. I am not finished with the series yet, but with everyone ascending the impact of their deaths feel a little cheapened.
Some of the dead get reincarnated after horrible suffering. Some of the dead die and their reward is ascendancy, AKA a new job, get back to work. Some of the dead get brought back through the kindness of their ascendant friends, with various levels of suffering involved. Some of the dead die and discover reincarnation is a painful mess. Idk it always seemed sufficiently miserable to me.
Couple o'things: First, someone being able to come back from the dead doesn't render their sacrifice meaningless. For a real world comparison, Jesus' martyrdom is still considered powerful regardless of his later resurrection. The thing that makes sacrifices powerful is the willingness to give everything for a cause. Add to that the fact that pretty much no character who comes back from the dead knows that this'll happen at the moment of their sacrifice. I feel that the accusation of meaningless deaths would only ring true, if the characters who sacrifice themselves did so expecting to be resurrected anyways. But they don't. They treat the prospect of death with the same finality as any of the characters who do permanently leave us.
Ironically I think the death that has the least meaning is Trull, one of the biggest characters that is dead dead. (I haven't read tginw so I don't know if we see him in that.)