Are these any good?
Or just pseudo-intellectual edgy bullshit?
>>8235821
I started reading the first in the series because of the memery on /sffg/ and some interesting snippets I read on the wiki.
Personally, I don't recommend it. The sex is far far more outrageous than I could have imagined. GRI isn't just a joke, and it isn't a rare occurrence. So far everything relating to the holy war is a carbon copy of the first and third crusade altered slightly. Literally everyone is an abominable monster. Everyone hates everyone. The philosophy and the creepy monsters, the two things that attracted me to this series in the first place, are pushed to the periphery for the sake of backstabbing and fucking. I haven't read Prince of Thorns, but I can't imagine it being edgier than this.
What I've read so far will be useful for shitposting but I would not suggest investing your time into it.
What's intellectual about them?
>>8235927
>Kellhus exhibits incredible powers of prediction and persuasion, which are derived from deep knowledge of rationality, cognitive biases, and causality, as discovered by the Dûnyain, a secret monastic sect.
>The key feature distinguishing the Prince of Nothing series from its contemporaries is the importance of philosophy to the work. The plot, characters, setting, and metaphysics of the Prince of Nothing are intertwined with philosophical positions unique to the series.
>>8235901
What the fuck does GRI mean holy shit
>>8235989
>>8235821
Great books.
>pseudo-intellectual
Maybe if you're a dumbass who thinks anything more difficult than Malazan or WoT is "pseudo-intellectual".
I've just finsihed the first book and liked it just as much as the first book of malazan. It is edgy when you read about it but it doesn't feel that edgy when you actually read it. There is a lot of sex and rape but it doesn't pushe the story away. Also I kind of enjoy the philosophy perspective of it. I enjoy it but I can see not everyone might. It's not soiaf normie series
>>8236071
I found the philosophy fairly uninteresting or lost behind the ugly dissonant names.
"Walls meant nothing, their bright eyed Padirajah assured them, when schools went to war. Mathematicians from nenciphon were consulted, as was the great architect Gotauran ab Suraki. Then the cishaurim were employed. For a time the horsemen at azoreah could only stare in astonishment. Lights flashed, white haloed by blue indigo, then the faraway Tantanah gate and tracts of adjoining wall were simply dropped, dissolving into gigantic blooms of dust." Page after page of that ugly prose. Fucking terrible. What does the book have to say about metaphysics or epistemology? What branch of philosophy is this? Nietzchean cuckoldry? The philosophy in Malazan was more interesting to me, and that was mostly pragmatic fatalism ... Wolfe does theodicy and cosmology well, but I can't even tell where philosophy is in Bakker for the most part. Man and demon making love to dirtholes in the ground?
