[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sir Fragula I still need to read this. Every time I've checked on Kindle it hasn't been available in England. :([/quote] Your time will come.

have not read Thursday war but have it on order

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] grey101 Well everybody should consider maggie a villain after TTW.[/quote] Agreed.

Well everybody should consider maggie a villain after TTW.

I dont think Halos tone has ever been optimistic unless your of t american/Anglo Saxon/ European /Christian Descent it seems like a pan american universe with most other cultures bleached out of existence and its only now with Glasslands that hard questions are being asked. 343 need to ask these questions and if necessary rip cannon up and throw it away because previous cannon is unsuitable for kids. or just quit selling mega bloks and action figures in toys r us. Halysey is hated yes but some of the characters are being manipulated to do so. so many hardcore fans seem to miss this distinction plus it the first book of the series with a whole story arc of its own ahead of it I personally think Halsey is being set up for redemption and paragnosky as the villain again another point hardcore fans wilfully miss.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] grey101 I don't believe that because from the point of view those statements were given in, the Forerunners, of course they are going to see any expansion other than their own as "excessive". Even Bornstellar picked up and pointed out the hypocrisy.[/quote] I know this, and I used to make this very argument myself about how the Forerunner's leadership were hypocritical, hegemonizing -blam!-s and the majority of their populace content with genocide and susceptible to the very fallacy they accuse Humans of; generalizing whole species and being bigoted. In other words, all in all, no better themselves. Bear probably wrote this in to show their hypocrisy, but it just seems to me that 343i and Traviss are just taking it a face value and running with it in the most shallow way possible. Despite how hard I tell myself that Bear was intending for there to be hypocrisy there, the fact that Jul basically says exactly what the Didact says makes me think that 343i don't really see it that way. I didn't mind it in Cryptum when I read it the first time (Well I did a little bit; there was a complete lack of any sort of contention to the Didact's ridiculous opinions, and Born's statements seemed a bit too anvilicious and naive to be definitive), but now I am starting to realize that this is possibly a systemic theme running all throughout 343i's work. I mean it's not even the fact that they took the Forerunner down that road about being moralizing, hypocrisy or not, that I really find silly. I could put up with it if they were criticizing Humanity as it is now, or the UNSC, as these are clearly flawed societies with a lot of messed up stuff currently happening. In a way, the Didact is right about us just now. However, this Ancient Humanity is not us and it isn't the UNSC. It is supposed to be a Tier 1 civilization most likely with thousands of years of development behind it - and the best you could expect out of Humanity after all that time was basically the same old - xenophobia, warmongering, irrationality, etc. The Forerunners being hypocrites in this case doesn't really help, because hypocrites can still be right about that which they criticise. The only way I'd be happy is if it turns out that the Didact was flat out wrong in what he said, as well as being a hypocrite, and of course there being little to no mention of it in Glasslands, where it never fit in the first place.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primo84 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 "expansionism"[/quote]I have a feeling that it was just a sloppy nod to [i]Cryptum[/i] and ancient humanity. [/quote] Quite possibly. I hated it in the Forerunner trilogy as well; pretty much the only gripe I had with Bear's work. I think that it is a really silly theme. Ancient Humanity being these xenophobes, "purists" and genocidal seems more than a little extreme. And then Glasslands comes out and tells me that it isn't an arc, it's just there, as if it is some integrated part of the fiction now. Now we have to put up with the Forerunner/Sangheili equivalent of [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CantArgueWithElves]this[/url]. With the Forerunners it sort of fit because they were already established as this great transcended race (I still don't get the roots of this "Humans are Bastards" trope though) but with the Sangheili it seems as if they have been altered to fit that role; stuff has just been made up and thrown in so that someone on the writers board can fill the fiction with as much aimless cynicism as possible. I wouldn't mind it if other races were no better, but it is just turning out to be one of those tropes I guess where aliens cease to be believably and relatable characters in their own right, and just become Mary Sutopias and authorial mouthpieces, complete with the full set of handwavy reasons as to why they don't have the same issues Humanity has. I just don't think it fits Halo's tone; Halo has always been slightly optimistic despite being in a borderline Grimdark setting. I think that's why I can't seem to enjoy much of the newer fiction since Cryptum; the tone is almost completely different, in some cases diametrically opposed, such as the case of the Sangheili in Glasslands.[/quote] I don't believe that because From the point of view those statements were given in, the forerunners. Of course they are going to see any expansion other than their own as "excessive" Even bornstellar picked up and pointed out the hypocrisy. [quote] "Humans are naturally purists. They resent having to live with other species. In fact, they're among the most contentious, bigoted, selfcentered" He looked back at Riser and Chakas. "I never understood how my wife tolerated them." "[u]Forerunners don't like living with other species, either," I observed.[/u] "[b][u]Yes, but for good reason," the Didact said. "We enforce the Mantle. We must focus and protect and preserve all lifeincluding ourselves."[/b][/u][/quote] So it wasn't right for the humans to expand yet it was fine for the forerunners to add more worlds to the millions they already own because they follow the mantle. You can easily see the hypocrisy and justification for such in that passage. Then there is this. [quote] For these dreams spoke of leave-taking and farewell, of the last night before a grand battle that would spread across a hundred thousand light-years to determine the fate of a [b]thousand suns and twenty thousand worlds.[/b][/quote] [quote] This knowledge, however acquired, is what forced the Forerunners to preserve remnants of those they defeated, rather than wipe us from the slate of history, as they had so many others before."[/quote] Seeing as there are millions upon millions of planets in this galaxy i see no issue with the humans controlling 20,000 worlds compared to the forerunners 3 [b]million[/b]. Not to mention humanity has been the only race stated to escape forerunner dominance to such a degree. If the humans were so violent with other species i wouldn't expect the amount of concern Yprin Showed at the though of the forerunners erasing them. [quote] My privilegeto be born and raised all unaware of what Forerunners had had to do to protect their position in the galaxy: moving opposing civilizations and species aside, taking over their worlds and their resources, undermining their growth and developmentreducing them to a population of specimens. Making sure their opponents could never rise again, never present a threat to Forerunner dominance, all while claiming the privilege of protecting the Mantle. Mopping up after the slaughter. How many species had collapsed beneath our hypocrisy, stretching how far back in time? What was myth, what was nightmare, what was truth? My life, my luxury rising from the crushed backs of the vanquished, who were destroyed or deevolved[/quote] Case point.

hi welcome to bungie unverse.. u can find every sort of games puzzles here..if u want classified websites u can click ths link ..................... -------------------------- [url=http://www.alladsclassified.com] Top Ten classified website [/url]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primo84 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 "expansionism"[/quote]I have a feeling that it was just a sloppy nod to [i]Cryptum[/i] and ancient humanity. [/quote] Quite possibly. I hated it in the Forerunner trilogy as well; pretty much the only gripe I had with Bear's work. I think that it is a really silly theme. Ancient Humanity being these xenophobes, "purists" and genocidal seems more than a little extreme. And then Glasslands comes out and tells me that it isn't an arc, it's just there, as if it is some integrated part of the fiction now. Now we have to put up with the Forerunner/Sangheili equivalent of [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CantArgueWithElves]this[/url]. With the Forerunners it sort of fit because they were already established as this great transcended race (I still don't get the roots of this "Humans are Bastards" trope though) but with the Sangheili it seems as if they have been altered to fit that role; stuff has just been made up and thrown in so that someone on the writers board can fill the fiction with as much aimless cynicism as possible. I wouldn't mind it if other races were no better, but it is just turning out to be one of those tropes I guess where aliens cease to be believably and relatable characters in their own right, and just become Mary Sutopias and authorial mouthpieces, complete with the full set of handwavy reasons as to why they don't have the same issues Humanity has. I just don't think it fits Halo's tone; Halo has always been slightly optimistic despite being in a borderline Grimdark setting. I think that's why I can't seem to enjoy much of the newer fiction since Cryptum; the tone is almost completely different, in some cases diametrically opposed, such as the case of the Sangheili in Glasslands.

I felt the outrage, while not necessarily misplaced, was put on a completely ridiculous and unwarranted scale which the previous novels simply don't imply. It is laughable that Parangosky found the cloning aspect of the project to be the most unacceptable, when in reality it is the most humane way to go about an intrinsically inhumane situation. Traviss suffered from ignorance of the franchise she was writing for. She may have gotten the core details, but she didn't know the characters and their motivations, and that was a big problem when it came to writing about them.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 "expansionism"[/quote]I have a feeling that it was just a sloppy nod to [i]Cryptum[/i] and ancient humanity.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 The expansionism was a funny one. Supposedly space in the Milky Way galaxy is in short supply between the Sangheili and Humans and that Human "expansionism" (Whatever that actually means; we have seen absolutely nothing so far that defines what that is in comparison to other races' supposedly "acceptable" expansions. It's utterly meaningless drivel that we are just expected to accept all of a sudden.) is a serious issue for the Sangheili. It is also made out that all of a sudden, the two empires that had never even known of each others existence until 27 years ago are now suddenly rubbing uncomfortably against each other. (The Sangheili have been space faring for almost 4000 years and never once did Humanity detect their radio emissions or anything. They can't be that close surely.) [b]All in all, just another shoddy excuse to get the outdated conflict ball rolling again.[/b][/quote] EXACTLY! They are seriously trying to say "if the humans weren't so far spread we would have beaten them sooner and not be in this mess". Hell, i think it was jul that even stated that we wouldn't be hard to wipe out but the san shyuum would. Whaa? They don't have the keyship nor do they have any type of population. So i am seriously trying to understand what was going on in karen's mind when she wrote such statement.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 The expansionism was a funny one. Supposedly space in the Milky Way galaxy is in short supply between the Sangheili and Humans and that Human "expansionism" (Whatever that actually means; we have seen absolutely nothing so far that defines what that is in comparison to other races' supposedly "acceptable" expansions. It's utterly meaningless drivel that we are just expected to accept all of a sudden.) is a serious issue for the Sangheili. It is also made out that all of a sudden, the two empires that had never even known of each others existence until 27 years ago are now suddenly rubbing uncomfortably against each other. (The Sangheili have been space faring for almost 4000 years and never once did Humanity detect their radio emissions or anything. They can't be that close surely.) All in all, just another shoddy excuse to get the outdated conflict ball rolling again.[/quote] I agree, it makes no sense.

The expansionism was a funny one. Supposedly space in the Milky Way galaxy is in short supply between the Sangheili and Humans and that Human "expansionism" (Whatever that actually means; we have seen absolutely nothing so far that defines what that is in comparison to other races' supposedly "acceptable" expansions. It's utterly meaningless drivel that we are just expected to accept all of a sudden.) is a serious issue for the Sangheili. It is also made out that all of a sudden, the two empires that had never even known of each others existence until 27 years ago are now suddenly rubbing uncomfortably against each other. (The Sangheili have been space faring for almost 4000 years and never once did Humanity detect their radio emissions or anything. They can't be that close surely.) All in all, just another shoddy excuse to get the outdated conflict ball rolling again.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cmdr DaeFaron [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Fin5434p My main issue is when she uses her books to advance her own political or personal views, and her perchant for rants. Particularly *misaimed* rants, like demonising Halsey and comparing her to mengele. Her rants in SW were all from 'Mando' characters and directed primarily at the jedi. This would be fine if it was part of a bigger plot point, or character development, but it isn't: every other character just nods and goes along with the 'obvious wisdom' of her mouthpiece character. [b]My main problem with her writing is it's very opinionated, and she writes in a way that presumes the reader agrees with her, opposing views are not presented and no one really questions the viewpoint she puts forward, even if it would be in character to do so.[/b] The S IIs that were on onyx would have defended Halsey come hell or high water,we know this from previous work, they are all aware of the details of the Spartan programme. Do they? Nah. [/quote] Kinda curious about what she said concerning Jedi now. :P And bolded point is pretty much what I've been saying. We aren't given much of a viewpoint about Halsey's good side. We aren't given ANY viewpoint or knowledge about the elites who want peace because they respect humanity.[/quote] From the limited knowledge i have she gave a ridiculously low number for the amount of stormtroopers defending a planet. That is the extent of my star wars knowledge with her though obviously Fin could elaborate far more on that than i can. Which is my issue in that department, If some people said halsey was good and others said she was bad then it would balance out. The book doesn't offer that nor does it give the uneducated reader a chance to pick their side of the moral fence through the details that should have been explained in the novel. Such as the founding and history of the spartan project as well as pointing out the differences between the SII and SIII program. It would have been a far better read in that case and would have sparked better discussions on why people have their views on halsey. The Same for the elites we only see one side of the fence and that makes us think it is the [b]only[/b] side of the fence. With bungie it seemed to be going in the direction that the elites would be able to tolerate us if not start a new covenant [b]with[/b] us. That idea is completely absent in Glasslands as it seems the elites either A) want to wipe us out quickly or B) want to go separate ways until the can wipe us out. Then there are statements like this; [quote]What was he doing worrying about the humans? They were no more than an infestation, backward vermin, and could be eradicated.[/quote] [quote]"We might have different priorities, Jul, but I do agree with you. There's no lasting peace to be made with humans. We've killed too many of them. This is just a lull in the war. It might be weeks or years or even centuries, but it'll never be truly over."[/quote] [quote]"They'll be back," he said, running a polishing cloth over his armor for the tenth time that morning. "They're like the Flood. They expand to fill every available space. They devour everything in their path. Except they can plan and wait, and persuade our more gullible brothers with clever argument, which makes them even more dangerous."[/quote] [quote]"Am I the only one who can see that the humans are just catching their breath? They won't forget, and they won't forgive. They certainly won't stop their colonization."[/quote] I feel like the last to quotes blatantly show karen's disregard for the halo lore not to mention how childish the elites now are. The Elites have been spacefaring for more than 3,000 years meaning they should have [b]thousands[/b] of planets seeing as the UNSC had 800 planets and or systems under their belt on a lower technological tier. So for the Elites to compare the to the flood (which made my jaw drop the first round) was just ridiculous even more so since it is the covenant that suck up all the resources of a planet and leave it barren, like the flood. -_- You then have the comments about humans never forgiving/forgetting and that it is better off to just go ahead and wipe them out. Which isn't consistent with the elites being an "honorable race" seeing as they should be sucking up to humanity for wrongly butchering billions for no reason. Instead Glasslands has the elites blaming the humans for the current crisis they are in more so than the san shyumm with the idea of "if the humans weren't so widespread we would have defeated them sooner and wouldn't be in this mess". Sadly halo doesn't seem to be the universe that will make an idea stick with all members of a race. So in a sense it isn't wrong that we have this viewpoint of elites since it does show that not all elites hold the standard we are used to. But at the same time it would have been nice to acknowledge the elites that want an actual [b]truce[/b] and relationship with the humans instead of this "there is a war but nobody is firing" nonsense. [Edited on 08.22.2012 6:15 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Fin5434p My main issue is when she uses her books to advance her own political or personal views, and her perchant for rants. Particularly *misaimed* rants, like demonising Halsey and comparing her to mengele. Her rants in SW were all from 'Mando' characters and directed primarily at the jedi. This would be fine if it was part of a bigger plot point, or character development, but it isn't: every other character just nods and goes along with the 'obvious wisdom' of her mouthpiece character. [b]My main problem with her writing is it's very opinionated, and she writes in a way that presumes the reader agrees with her, opposing views are not presented and no one really questions the viewpoint she puts forward, even if it would be in character to do so.[/b] The S IIs that were on onyx would have defended Halsey come hell or high water,we know this from previous work, they are all aware of the details of the Spartan programme. Do they? Nah. [/quote] Kinda curious about what she said concerning Jedi now. :P And bolded point is pretty much what I've been saying. We aren't given much of a viewpoint about Halsey's good side. We aren't given ANY viewpoint or knowledge about the elites who want peace because they respect humanity.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primo84 It implies a seriousness that simply isn't there, seeing as we're talking about fictional characters.[/quote] Oh come on dude, it's talking about a character in a book, [i]of course it isn't a legal context[/i]. Nitpicking like that is just silly. [quote]And I think the shared conclusion makes sense, although I think you detractors aren't giving Mal's conclusion enough attention, so I don't think it's as unanimous as you're making it out to be. Given the perspective of each character, their conclusions make sense.[/quote] They may be internally consistant, but so were the ones in Star Wars that presented the Jedi as child stealing evil autocrats. Just because it follows an internally consistant argument doesn't make it a [i]good[/i] or even necessarily [i]correct[/i] argument. I would be more inclined to give Traviss the benifit of the doubt if she genuinely used these things for character development but she doesn't. My main issue is when she uses her books to advance her own political or personal views, and her perchant for rants. Particularly *misaimed* rants, like demonising Halsey and comparing her to mengele. Her rants in SW were all from 'Mando' characters and directed primarily at the jedi. This would be fine if it was part of a bigger plot point, or character development, but it isn't: every other character just nods and goes along with the 'obvious wisdom' of her mouthpiece character. My main problem with her writing is it's very opinionated, and she writes in a way that presumes the reader agrees with her, opposing views are not presented and no one really questions the viewpoint she puts forward, even if it would be in character to do so. The S IIs that were on onyx would have defended Halsey come hell or high water,we know this from previous work, they are all aware of the details of the Spartan programme. Do they? Nah. [quote]And I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that, while worse than Halsey's actions, they don't make hers any better. If you lay a skeleton next to a recently dead body and compare them, in the end, they're both still dead. [/quote] Training children as soldiers to fight, and training a child as a suicide bomber are very different. Yes both are morally 'Wrong' but there are levels within that too. At least the SIIs were valued.

Heh... maybe you two need to redirect back toward Halsey, and not each other.

That's what I was referring to. Sure, you worded it better than others, but it's nothing new.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primo84 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] raganok99 I find it to be funny that anyone ignored my post pointing out why Glasslands was horrid. [/quote]You didn't say anything that hasn't already been mentioned a dozen times. [/quote] [quote] Rubbish. Utter rubbish crap spouted by Traviss. I'll let you know that she actually admitted that she didn't do any research on Halo universe, only used "hard facts" to assert her writing of Glasslands. That is one of many reasons why Glasslands received low rating and is regarded as worst Halo novel to be dated in Halo franchise. Unbiased view? Ha, don't make me laugh. Rebuilting characters from [i]Fall of Reach, First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx[/i] and using that rebuilt character as form to attack Dr. Halsey in somewhat way of implementing her opinion (I dare to say, highly moralistic sense) and even made Dr. Halsey from cold and calculating woman to drama queen with personal problems. That, is [i]truly[/i] pathetic. [i]Perhaps[/i] 343i studios should have paid little more attention at her horrendous writing and gave her such harsh criticism and corrections to make sure that Halo canon isn't raped over again. I apologize for a small rant, I just find Traviss's writing of Halo novel was huge mistake made by 343i Studios. They should have kept Eric Nylund for marvelous novels e.g [i]Fall of Reach, First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx[/i]. [/quote] Enough for you now?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] raganok99 I find it to be funny that anyone ignored my post pointing out why Glasslands was horrid. [/quote]You didn't say anything that hasn't already been mentioned a dozen times.

I find it to be funny that anyone ignored my post pointing out why Glasslands was horrid.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] notnooborelite Wow. Ruined any threads lately?[/quote]C'mon, man, it's the Universe Forum. This is the only activity is gets, and it's not like this discussion hasn't taken place before.

Wow. Ruined any threads lately?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] grey101 15. Who is to make that comparison? So Ackersons actions that might have save a city or to are to be praised but Halsey finding a treasure trove of forerunner technologies that would propel our entire race shouldn't? 16.You really need to take your own advice since you have been doing that this entire time. 17.Lacking opinions of characters that [b]support[/b] halsey and try to stand up for her as much as those that are trying to put her down. 19. Didn't i just post the stuff that ackerson did that makes him worse than halsey? It isn't like that stuff isn't in GoO if you aren't going to acknowledge what i posted as "factual content" since as it wasn't fictional. 20.A single CCS being destroyed isn't much a a victory and that still has no weight over halsey's findings. 21. You probably didn't but i thought you were trying to imply that it was but i get confused. Seeing as everytime it seems like something was implied you say it wasn't and when it doesn't seem like there was something to be implied you say there was. I still don't see a that as equal in Samsara's eyes because a little torture and a quick beheading doesn't seem equal as being burned alive. Or being cut limb from limb by an elite and the countless other deaths those children faced.[/quote]I'll reply to this later. I wouldn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I miss Snakie. [Edited on 08.22.2012 11:13 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Fin5434p [quote]You're using real-world legal terms to describe the interpretation of a person that doesn't exist, as if the interpreter of said person, the author, has actually committed some sort of legitimate offense.[/quote]The word 'slander' is perfectly appropriate in context, and it does not require a legal use.[/quote]It implies a seriousness that simply isn't there, seeing as we're talking about fictional characters.[quote][quote]And I've suggested that you look up what the word "perspective" means. There is no single shared perspective in this book, as everyone has reached their conclusions for their own individual reasons, which I've explained, which you've ignored.[/quote]The problem is, as with many Karen Travis books, that they have all arrived at [i]the same[/i] conclusion. Namely hers, just dressed up a little differently each time. She did this in the SW books she wrote as well, and she does not often present an opposing viewpoint. That kind of thing is fine in fanfiction but not a published work.[/quote]And I think the shared conclusion makes sense, although I think you detractors aren't giving Mal's conclusion enough attention, so I don't think it's as unanimous as you're making it out to be. Given the perspective of each character, their conclusions make sense. [quote][quote]Why? Why was Ackerson worse than Halsey?[/quote]Disposable suicide children. That about covers it.[/quote]And I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that, while worse than Halsey's actions, they don't make hers any better. If you lay a skeleton next to a recently dead body and compare them, in the end, they're both still dead.