The Darkness That Comes Before (The Prince of Nothing, #1) The Darkness That Comes Before question


86 views
Is it just Me or wouldn't this make an awesome Movie?
Alfred Alfred Jan 03, 2012 08:05PM
I'm currently reading this book again, but I first read it nearly two years ago and I thought it was the best written and concieved novel in its genre I'd read since Jim Butcher's dresden files.
But this is a deeper, more psychological fantasy fiction than anything else out there and yet it still satisfies the desire for gratuitous violence and action. The main character, Kellhus Anasurimbor is a machine of war and simultaneously more than a match for any Vulcan! then he learns magic! Am I the only one who thinks this story sings?



Goran (last edited Jan 09, 2012 09:05AM ) Jan 09, 2012 08:53AM   0 votes
I don't agree. PoN is just too complex to fit into a movie. Now a series, like the recent HBO's Game of Thrones could work. BUT. As Bo said series is underrated, and there is a good reason for it - it is not everybody's cup of tea, Bakker didn't aim to please masses, but rather he remained true too himself, and I love him for it. And besides, the story is depressing, brutal, controversial, sexist and philosophical at the same time, you can hardly call it mainstream material.


"best written and concieved novel in its genre" ??? havnt read 'a song of ice and fire' i see...

what turned me off the 'prince of nothing' series was that Kellhus was way too powerful, never really empathised with him and i ended up finding him pretty annoying - the barbarian and wizard were better characters in my opinion (sorry dont remember their names)

4682302
Asgar Martin's good if you just want to read something breezy and accessible. Although you won't get the same intellectual satisfaction you get with Bakker. ...more
Jan 24, 2012 12:18AM · flag

Yefim (last edited Jan 21, 2012 05:48PM ) Jan 21, 2012 05:48PM   -1 votes
I was attracted to Bakker's writing much for the same reasons Alfred was. I think the world he has constructed, and the characters that live in it are so vivid and real, that I've read and enjoyed the books even though I personally can't stand his writing style (he tried to imitate Tolkien, and he failed). By contrast, Malazan has all the required things, a diverse world full of flashy bits. But Bakker's world is more than that. It has depth. Things are they way they are for a reason. People act the way they do for a reason. You can examine the world as a historian or sociologist would and it will all make sense, just as our own world's history would. Erikson's world, on the other hand, is shallow. It has diversity, but it lacks the depth and internal consistency that makes Bakker's books what they are. That, and the fact that the only thing that distinguishes a lot of his characters are their names is why Erikson is nowhere near as good.

6966073
Alfred I have to disagree with the statement that quality is not subjective. What one group considers excellent another may well consider dreck and dross! of ...more
Jan 24, 2012 08:38PM · flag

I couldn't agree with you more. The Prince of Nothing is phenomenal, and extremely underrated.
I can see this being made into a feature with the same style as Valhalla Rising. That movie is so bleak and surreal, nothing compares to its atmosphere and grittiness.

But I'm shocked to find that you haven't read the Malazan Book of the Fallen. The Book of the Fallen is groundbreaking, think Prince of Nothing, but leagues better. It has the exact same dark tone, and constant impending sense of doom, but it's written so much better. A strongly, strongly recommend reading the Book of the Fallen if you like the Prince of Nothing. In my opinion, they are the best there is to offer, be it Lord of the Rings or Ice and Fire, nothing compares to Prince of Nothing and Malazan.


back to top