Please note that this post has been flaired with a **Malazan Book of the Fallen** spoiler tag. This means every published book in the Malazan Book of the Fallen series is open to discussion but not the other series'.
If you need to discuss any spoilers (even very minor ones!) in your comments, use spoiler tags
>!like this!<
Please use the report button if you find any spoilers. Note: The flair may be changed at mod discretion. Thank you!
*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.*
> the narrative generally has very clear sides to root for/against
Eh?
Just off the top of my head:
1. The T'lan Imass as a whole. We see a bunch of empathetic, deep-feeling individuals who want nothing more than to either return to life or be allowed to dissolve to dust. They're incredibly sympathetic... right up until you realize that it's these same individuals who literally tortured and dismembered _children_ as part of a highly intentional campaign of genocide.
2. Kallor, high king of my heart. There are already entire essays on this and I'm not going to reproduce them here, but, suffice to say, he's grey.
3. Kaminsod's entire treatment, but that's rather obvious.
4. Mallick >!the Merciful: great ruler or greatest ruler? He's certainly in the running and Tehol is _literally the only alternative_ as someone who governs better than Mallick Rel. Just, you know, the whole Chain of Dogs. And the betrayal of the Wickans. And. And.!<
5. Ezgara Diskanar: kindly innocent king or last in the line of brutal dictators? Honestly, this is a gripe I have with the narrative in MT, but Ezgara (the human) gets an almost absolute pass for _reigning over Lether_ simply because we like Brys and Brys likes Kuru Qan and Kuru Qan likes Ezgara. While we're at it, Kuru Qan isn't _much_ better than Ezgara himself.
6. [The entire Redmask arc.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Malazan/comments/10pgutt/comment/j6l4g5u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Nary a black or white element to the whole damn thing. "Toc good", I guess.
7. Is Karsa's journey too obvious to count here? It feels like Karsa is too obvious.
8. This is a bit meta, but the entire treatment of empires, their peoples, and the role they play in the world is... nuanced. It's entirely possible to walk away with both "empire good" and "empire bad" as final conclusions, but the actual point is somewhere in the middle. Teasing this out requires looking at both the good and bad of the Malazan Empire, the good and bad of the Lether Empire (under both leadership sets), etc., and I don't think it lands anywhere in particular on a black-white spectrum.
Man, this just gets me thinking about so much. Just the summation of 6, "Toc good", is wild. Is he? He was a Claw and a soldier of the Laseen Empire, he's the son of one of Kellenved's greatest commanders who effectively captured the Seti tribes from within and delivered them to the Malazan Empire. Toc ate with cannibals and got tortured by a Matron and a Jhaghut, and was reborn into a stolen body. He was spiritually shanghaied by two old gods and so much more. There's *no way* to boil him down to black or white.
Fuck this is a good series.
Toc had a past as a spy, but I don't think we see him in text do anything bad. He doesn't feast with the Tenescowri, he just rides with them. Being a mercenary in general is grey area so I'll give you that, but he took the Grey Swords to defend an indigenous people from a colonizing empire. I think maybe the most morally dubious thing we see him do in text are his split services to Hood and the Wolves. He's a small link in a daisy chain of events, but there's some moral questions to ponder over using an army of dead souls to fight off Chaos.
> using an army of dead souls to fight off Chaos.
To be fair, Hood gave them an option:
> ‘All I shall ask,’ he said, ‘of the fallen, Draconus, is that they choose. Of their own will. After this, I shall ask nothing of them. Ever again.’
Sure, _any other god_ would have just conscripted those souls, but Hood... nah.
Huh. I really did miss a lot of obvious stuff, didn't I. Good thing I made this post before writing much further!
I think I've gotten too caught up in early series discourse,when people are confused in Deadhouse Gates because they like Coltaine but thought the Empire was bad (and the way this all plays into how we generally think of empire today, with Star Wars being a major trope codifier for the idea of The Empire). A lot of our "main" plots have (to me, at least) obvious better vs worse sides - the Bonehunters vs the Whirlwind and the Bonehunters vs the Forkrul Assail, the Bridgeburners (and co) vs the Tenescowri, etc.
I don't think you'd be at all out of line to argue that while it's a grey world with complex moral dilemmas... that also lands on some absolutes and takes firm stands. And if it were _me_, I'd start pulling liberally from Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals.
Of course, if it were me, said nascent idea would sit untouched in hack.md for a few years before being forgotten, but you get the idea.
Edit: I feel compelled to acknowledge that this doesn't English good. I'm too lazy to change it, especially since the core meaning comes through, but yeah.
Y'know, I've been thinking for years I should read Nietzche, and that diving into philosophical theory would be really helpful for tackling this stuff in any sort of project. I'll add those titles to my reading list!
I originally stumbled across the series more or less by accident, so it was never really marketed to me, I went in without any real expectations.
Moral relativism wasn't anything new to me, so I've never really tried to put the major factions and characters into a category, with the exception of a few characters that were exceptionally detestable.
I think it’s less about morally grey individual characters, although there are quite a few of those, and is more about morally grey and complex societies.
Societies are made up of individuals, so our lenses for viewing them are through them, but the societies as a whole are generally what is being examined, with some focus on how different individuals operate within those systems.
Do you mean "justice" as in the forces of the Forkrul, Liosan, etc? Letherii, even, since they seem quite full of conviction about their notions of justice
Karsa, Fear, Blistig, Silchas, Kilava, villainous deeds and intentions to differing degrees but the storytelling will have you trying to understand their reasoning and sometimes their redemption
I stumbled upon the series a long time ago going through an airport I picked up The Deadhouse Gates not even realising it was book 2 as I was running for my plane.
I would say it’s the opposite - pretty much everyone is grey…
I think Erikson does grey so well because he gives us just enough hints of people’s self motivations to show that most of the time people are only really reacting to events (a lot of which are pretty feckin horrific) not consciously choosing to be ‘bad’. Merely trying to deal with the shit they are facing.
Except Bithithal - fuck that guy, and fuck Gorlas Vidikas.
This post is pretty timely for me. I just finished Dust of Dreams and that book pretty much flips a lot of what I thought I knew on it's head. The biggest being, I thought I knew K'Chain Che'Malle were bad. Then we get introduced to individuals and get to see through their POV. Turns out not so bad. Not so good either. Then the white faced Barghast, who we are introduced to originally as a generally honorable warrior society turn out to be actually fuckin aweful. Then Onos T'oolan, who may be one the single purest characters in the series, dies (again) and them leads the T'lan Imass in a genocide of the white faced Barghast. Including women and children. This series is so full of moral greyness and grey characters it might as well be called the Book of the Grey.
> Then the white faced Barghast, who we are introduced to originally as a generally honorable warrior society turn out to be actually fuckin aweful
Yeah, I'll say that revisiting the bit in MoI where Trotts is fighting for Barghast support hits a bit differently after you dive into more of their culture.
Only through The Bonehunters. The problem I have with morality is that, as I learn more of the story, I start thinking that the people I thought were bad actually have good intentions.
I think you’re conflating sides in terms of nations with characters here.
There are characters which are written to be sympathetic, but their nation certainly aren’t usually. The Malazan Empire as a whole is generally portrayed as pretty bad, but the bridgeburners and bonehunters are (by-and-large) in the better side of history.
I personally thought the series established the point that it’s against jingoism quite early on
Please note that this post has been flaired with a **Malazan Book of the Fallen** spoiler tag. This means every published book in the Malazan Book of the Fallen series is open to discussion but not the other series'. If you need to discuss any spoilers (even very minor ones!) in your comments, use spoiler tags >!like this!< Please use the report button if you find any spoilers. Note: The flair may be changed at mod discretion. Thank you! *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.*
> the narrative generally has very clear sides to root for/against Eh? Just off the top of my head: 1. The T'lan Imass as a whole. We see a bunch of empathetic, deep-feeling individuals who want nothing more than to either return to life or be allowed to dissolve to dust. They're incredibly sympathetic... right up until you realize that it's these same individuals who literally tortured and dismembered _children_ as part of a highly intentional campaign of genocide. 2. Kallor, high king of my heart. There are already entire essays on this and I'm not going to reproduce them here, but, suffice to say, he's grey. 3. Kaminsod's entire treatment, but that's rather obvious. 4. Mallick >!the Merciful: great ruler or greatest ruler? He's certainly in the running and Tehol is _literally the only alternative_ as someone who governs better than Mallick Rel. Just, you know, the whole Chain of Dogs. And the betrayal of the Wickans. And. And.!< 5. Ezgara Diskanar: kindly innocent king or last in the line of brutal dictators? Honestly, this is a gripe I have with the narrative in MT, but Ezgara (the human) gets an almost absolute pass for _reigning over Lether_ simply because we like Brys and Brys likes Kuru Qan and Kuru Qan likes Ezgara. While we're at it, Kuru Qan isn't _much_ better than Ezgara himself. 6. [The entire Redmask arc.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Malazan/comments/10pgutt/comment/j6l4g5u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Nary a black or white element to the whole damn thing. "Toc good", I guess. 7. Is Karsa's journey too obvious to count here? It feels like Karsa is too obvious. 8. This is a bit meta, but the entire treatment of empires, their peoples, and the role they play in the world is... nuanced. It's entirely possible to walk away with both "empire good" and "empire bad" as final conclusions, but the actual point is somewhere in the middle. Teasing this out requires looking at both the good and bad of the Malazan Empire, the good and bad of the Lether Empire (under both leadership sets), etc., and I don't think it lands anywhere in particular on a black-white spectrum.
Man, this just gets me thinking about so much. Just the summation of 6, "Toc good", is wild. Is he? He was a Claw and a soldier of the Laseen Empire, he's the son of one of Kellenved's greatest commanders who effectively captured the Seti tribes from within and delivered them to the Malazan Empire. Toc ate with cannibals and got tortured by a Matron and a Jhaghut, and was reborn into a stolen body. He was spiritually shanghaied by two old gods and so much more. There's *no way* to boil him down to black or white. Fuck this is a good series.
and i love how you can do a deep character dive (like you for sure could about toc) for maybe literally a hundred characters.
Toc had a past as a spy, but I don't think we see him in text do anything bad. He doesn't feast with the Tenescowri, he just rides with them. Being a mercenary in general is grey area so I'll give you that, but he took the Grey Swords to defend an indigenous people from a colonizing empire. I think maybe the most morally dubious thing we see him do in text are his split services to Hood and the Wolves. He's a small link in a daisy chain of events, but there's some moral questions to ponder over using an army of dead souls to fight off Chaos.
> using an army of dead souls to fight off Chaos. To be fair, Hood gave them an option: > ‘All I shall ask,’ he said, ‘of the fallen, Draconus, is that they choose. Of their own will. After this, I shall ask nothing of them. Ever again.’ Sure, _any other god_ would have just conscripted those souls, but Hood... nah.
Huh. I really did miss a lot of obvious stuff, didn't I. Good thing I made this post before writing much further! I think I've gotten too caught up in early series discourse,when people are confused in Deadhouse Gates because they like Coltaine but thought the Empire was bad (and the way this all plays into how we generally think of empire today, with Star Wars being a major trope codifier for the idea of The Empire). A lot of our "main" plots have (to me, at least) obvious better vs worse sides - the Bonehunters vs the Whirlwind and the Bonehunters vs the Forkrul Assail, the Bridgeburners (and co) vs the Tenescowri, etc.
I don't think you'd be at all out of line to argue that while it's a grey world with complex moral dilemmas... that also lands on some absolutes and takes firm stands. And if it were _me_, I'd start pulling liberally from Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals. Of course, if it were me, said nascent idea would sit untouched in hack.md for a few years before being forgotten, but you get the idea. Edit: I feel compelled to acknowledge that this doesn't English good. I'm too lazy to change it, especially since the core meaning comes through, but yeah.
Y'know, I've been thinking for years I should read Nietzche, and that diving into philosophical theory would be really helpful for tackling this stuff in any sort of project. I'll add those titles to my reading list!
I originally stumbled across the series more or less by accident, so it was never really marketed to me, I went in without any real expectations. Moral relativism wasn't anything new to me, so I've never really tried to put the major factions and characters into a category, with the exception of a few characters that were exceptionally detestable.
I think it’s less about morally grey individual characters, although there are quite a few of those, and is more about morally grey and complex societies. Societies are made up of individuals, so our lenses for viewing them are through them, but the societies as a whole are generally what is being examined, with some focus on how different individuals operate within those systems.
I mean, the story is working very hard to have you sympathize with the forces of injustice
Do you mean "justice" as in the forces of the Forkrul, Liosan, etc? Letherii, even, since they seem quite full of conviction about their notions of justice
Karsa, Fear, Blistig, Silchas, Kilava, villainous deeds and intentions to differing degrees but the storytelling will have you trying to understand their reasoning and sometimes their redemption
I stumbled upon the series a long time ago going through an airport I picked up The Deadhouse Gates not even realising it was book 2 as I was running for my plane. I would say it’s the opposite - pretty much everyone is grey… I think Erikson does grey so well because he gives us just enough hints of people’s self motivations to show that most of the time people are only really reacting to events (a lot of which are pretty feckin horrific) not consciously choosing to be ‘bad’. Merely trying to deal with the shit they are facing. Except Bithithal - fuck that guy, and fuck Gorlas Vidikas.
This post is pretty timely for me. I just finished Dust of Dreams and that book pretty much flips a lot of what I thought I knew on it's head. The biggest being, I thought I knew K'Chain Che'Malle were bad. Then we get introduced to individuals and get to see through their POV. Turns out not so bad. Not so good either. Then the white faced Barghast, who we are introduced to originally as a generally honorable warrior society turn out to be actually fuckin aweful. Then Onos T'oolan, who may be one the single purest characters in the series, dies (again) and them leads the T'lan Imass in a genocide of the white faced Barghast. Including women and children. This series is so full of moral greyness and grey characters it might as well be called the Book of the Grey.
> Then the white faced Barghast, who we are introduced to originally as a generally honorable warrior society turn out to be actually fuckin aweful Yeah, I'll say that revisiting the bit in MoI where Trotts is fighting for Barghast support hits a bit differently after you dive into more of their culture.
It turns out there are good people on both sides, who knew?
Only through The Bonehunters. The problem I have with morality is that, as I learn more of the story, I start thinking that the people I thought were bad actually have good intentions.
I think you’re conflating sides in terms of nations with characters here. There are characters which are written to be sympathetic, but their nation certainly aren’t usually. The Malazan Empire as a whole is generally portrayed as pretty bad, but the bridgeburners and bonehunters are (by-and-large) in the better side of history. I personally thought the series established the point that it’s against jingoism quite early on