Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kellais

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14

Literature / Re: Three Roses, Bk.1 by Roger Eichorn

« on: December 01, 2014, 12:23:46 pm »

Good to see you back on the writing-horse, so to speak, Rog!

And having a map handy is always a plus in my book...but then i'm sure you already knew (as i asked for maps on the previous page

)

I'll read as the time allows. Good luck with all your restructuring!

General Earwa / Re: Eärwa Maps

« on: November 24, 2014, 11:12:49 am »

Cool, Somna!

Yeah, the main problem is to know where forests are. We only have very few mentions and they are in a very general way. Maybe we could bother Scott with some info on it?

General Earwa / Re: Eärwa Maps

« on: November 22, 2014, 11:41:39 am »

You know, Somna, not to criticise, but i always wondered how the map would look if you also represented forests on it. I mean you also do a perspective representation of the mountains so it would be consistent to also depict the forests that way. Ever thought about that? I would very much like to see you do a version like that.

News/Announcements / Re: Quorum-less

« on: October 29, 2014, 02:24:01 pm »

What?! No quorum?!??! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry but this is too harsh a blow...i'm out....

.
.
.

More serious: I really hope we do get it back. I like that feature a lot.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Everything We Know (from scientific publications) is Wrong?

« on: October 22, 2014, 04:19:34 pm »

I think i see what you are getting at. And you are right, that we are shaped by our culture and the learning we receive/do. I still hold that even out of this, you can bring forth something new...at least as far as something like widsom/knowledge goes *. If you as a person can count as something "new" (and/or your views as a whole) ... i guess that's a very philosophical question. I cite the "you are more than the summ of your parts" quote and be done with it... i guess it shows in what direction i lean **

I think you also underestimate the value of "twist and turn" in that context? A lot of new stuff came out of starting by twisting and turning old stuff and then, suddenly, discover something totally differen/new.

*if that were not the case, science would be forever stuck in a circle where we discover nothing new...and that is demonstrably not the case.
** so from that angle, there IS room for "your" idea. Because it is very much probable that the exact "composition" of what makes your view/idea/etc. is unique and has never been here before.

General Earwa / Re: Eärwa Maps

« on: October 22, 2014, 03:56:18 pm »

Wow, Somna, awesome. So we DO know who will make all the detail maps for our upcoming p&p RPG...

(only half-joking!)

Philosophy & Science / Re: Quantum Mechanics - Interpretations & Implications

« on: October 20, 2014, 12:29:13 pm »

But the question is - is there an objective reality at all?! If there isn't (as some theories seem to implicate), there can be no gatekeeper/key to it

Oh and there is no such thing as bizarre mathematics. It's just mathematics

And tenuosly logical proofs?! No, just no.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Everything We Know (from scientific publications) is Wrong?

« on: October 20, 2014, 12:22:32 pm »

Quote from: Royce on October 05, 2014, 03:56:01 pm

I mean it literally though. I have no view or opinion which I can say is "mine". All my views are borrowed, always has been and always will be. I think that is the case for everyone. Unless you invent a new language, this must be the case:)

I decidedly disagree. Just because some of us have similar or even the same views/opinions, does not mean you have to borrow/copy them from someone. You can come up with an opinion/view all on your own. And "this opinion is not new" is not the same as "you copied the opinion from someone else". You have a logical fallacy here, Royce.
From "this already exists out there" does not follow "if someone uses this, he must have copied/borrowed it".
For example: calculus was more or less developed by two mathematicians simultaneously (Leibniz and Newton). Which proves that ideas/views are not singular.

Literature / Re: Maps

« on: October 20, 2014, 12:11:47 pm »

Ah maps! I love maps!

Cartographers guild is THE place to go if you like maps. I suggest you guys go there and browse it for a (long) bit.

Funny thing: the map you link to, Royce, is also by a member of the CG (he has also a DeviantArt gallery, mind you), named Ramah. The map you linked to, Somna, is by -Max-, a french mapper with a loooot of talent. He has many astounding maps.

So as not to be the only one who does not provide a map link, here goes (another one of Max's maps) :
http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/finished-maps/61090d1391705516-elandaria-fantasy-map-commission-elandaria.jpg

Philosophy & Science / Re: What neuroscience cannot tell Us about Ourselves

« on: October 17, 2014, 11:44:51 am »

Nice one, sci. That's what i was saying all along as well ^^ It's such a young discipline and much of it will have to be revised and rewritten as a lot of it right now is not much more than "first steps".
And count me in to those that consider this wonderful news ... much of what has been proclaimed so far is highly depressing, imo.

Literature / Re: Steven Erikson (The 3.5 million word journey?)

« on: October 15, 2014, 05:44:57 pm »

Quote from: Wilshire on October 15, 2014, 05:23:47 pm

I fixed the title so you won't have to stare at the incorrect name .

Thanks

Quote

I think I'll get a lot more out of the books if I read them more quickly. I did this for GotM but not so much for DG, and something got lost in the proceeding months.

I think that is a wise decision. I also had to read Erikson in longer session in a short time-span. Otherwise just too many hints and details get lost and the experience is just not the same. So if you can, do it that way, it's the one i'd recommend to everyone.

And yeah, as is said, i can't really pick one of those two over the other...only if i absolutely had to (like "gun to my head"-question

). Both have their points where they top the other one but both also have some clear weak-points. But i'd agree that pacing and complexity is not it.

Literature / Re: Stephen Erikson (The 3.5 million word journey?)

« on: October 15, 2014, 05:12:48 pm »

Cool stuff, Wilshire. I will be following this.

And that feeling of "wow, the second half of the book was f..... amazing!!!" ... get used to it. That how he rolls...first half is putting the pieces into place...second half is a glamorous rollercoaster of action and emotions.

I also loved GotM...but i also needed some 100 to 200 pages to really get into. But i think that is how it is supposed to be. Erikson is the embodiment of "show, don't tell" ... he just let's you "fight through" without too much guidance and explanations...the pay off comes over time (at least for those who do not give up).

Memories is my favorite book still. Sure, the final two are also quite a ride (as we get a lot of conclusions) but MoI is the one that stayed with me the longest.

Bakker and Erikson are the two authors that are, for me, at the top of the fantasy genre. You can't really compare the two...but if i had to chose only one to be Nr. 1, for me it would be Erikson (his scope and worldbuilding is just unparalleled [ok, Tolkien is still the King of Worldbuilding...but that will most probably remain so because he was more a worldbuilder than an author, in the end]).

News/Announcements / Re: Canadian publisher dumping TSA?

« on: October 12, 2014, 11:24:05 am »

Quote from: Wilshire on October 10, 2014, 12:58:08 pm

TSTSNBN, or the third sequence as you said above, to me as always existed as a possibility but not a sure-thing. Meaning that while in concept it exists, Bakker hasn't been 100% sure he would ever get to writing it.

I have a distinctly different memory of that. For me, it always seemed clear that this is happening. He talked about those 3 series in no uncertain terms. Now, granted, there is always life that can happen...and maybe it will happen here. But it would make me really sad. There can never be enough TSA.
I only hope (and maybe Madness can answer that question) that if we only ever get the end of TAE, that it still makes a good and satisfying end/conclusion to TSA for us, the readers. Because if not, i will send all my books back to Scott and will ask for a refund!

@ Bolivar - sorry for not providing a link in the first place but i was in a hurry when i posted and now i can't seem to find it anymore. Although i am pretty sure that it was indeed on Westeros where i read it.

News/Announcements / Canadian publisher dumping TSA?

« on: October 10, 2014, 11:15:40 am »

So i heard on the internet, that Penguin will no longer publish Bakker?! They will sell Overlook Press books in canada for the upcoming TUC.

Wow?!

There's even some speculation going around, that Scott will most probably not write the third sequence at all.

Does anyone know more about that?

I really hope that at least the last part is bogus. But if the first part is true (about Penguin dumping Scott), that's also sad "news" (no idea if i am just "late to the party" or if that is still news).

I thought you guys might find this interesting (and aggravating).

Philosophy & Science / Re: What neuroscience cannot tell Us about Ourselves

« on: October 04, 2014, 01:17:12 pm »

Quote

...she insists, is not a hypothesis but a whole new paradigm. As a consequence, it cannot be tested like a conventional theory; those calling for her to produce evidence are missing the point. Greenfield’s idea is beyond the realms of “proof”

Lol...awesome. This right here is the proof that it's bullshit. All pseudo-scientists use that as an excuse for not producing evidence/proof of their "theories".
Always a good thing if your adversaries discredit themselves

I especially like the "...are missing the point..." line of reasoning. It reminds me of Terry Goodkind fans that tell you that you just didn't get the books if you dare to be sceptical/critical about them

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14