Jump to content

I don't understand the love for Erikson/Malazan


Ser Daxos

Recommended Posts

It seems that everywhere I go, people rank the Malazan Books of the Fallen among their all time favorites in the fantasy genre. I've also noticed that opinions of it are very polarizing -- you either love it or you hate it. I'm in the latter group and I honestly don't understand how anybody can be in the former.



I recently forced myself through Gardens of the Moon (I wanted to at least give it a chance and get through it to try and understand the hype) and consider it the worst book I've ever read. The whole thing screams amateur and feels like it was written by a twelve year old who occasionally cracked open daddy's thesaurus in an attempt to convince us that he wasn't actually twelve. Most of the character names were the concoctions of a twelve year old as was the awful "prose", the lack of flow, the extreme case of "show don't tell" so that you sometimes had no clue what was going on, but most of all the ridiculous, nonsensical, non sequitur reactions and responses of the characters to incredibly bad dialogue -- including the endless cacophony of incongruous grunts, sighs, and growls to every word that was uttered. Amateur.



It did occasionally have some good parts, particularly toward the end, or I probably would have tossed it in the garbage rather than starting and stopping a half dozen times in a painstaking attempt to just get through it in order to say that I'd read it but it took every ounce of patience and resolve that I had to do so. However, the book as a whole was nowhere close to redeemed by the occasional well-written excerpt.



My apologies to people who love the Malazan series but...why? How? I kept thinking that maybe I was missing something like in the telling of a marginally funny or cryptic joke but it's the book (and Erickson) that was the real joke. It is the worst written piece of overrated garbage that I have ever purchased, yet people love it, and I just don't get it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't bother to respond to the ridiculous hyperbole in your rant.



However, I will say that everyone says to not judge the series based on the first book alone; you need to at least read the second one (Deadhouse Gates) before deciding.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't bother to respond to the ridiculous hyperbole in your rant.

However, I will say that everyone says to not judge the series based on the first book alone; you need to at least read the second one (Deadhouse Gates) before deciding.

I admit that when you strongly dislike something that you feel is highly overrated you may be inclined to use hyperbole in conveying your disgust, but said ridiculous hyperbole should make the whole post very easy to shoot down then shouldn't it? I am legitimately curious as to why this series is ranked so high by some people and I'm completely serious about everything that I said even if it might come across as "ridiculous hyperbole" to you. That is how I feel about Erickson and Gardens of the Moon. Perhaps if I didn't feel it was so hugely overrated, I might have written a less scathing review of it, but I am thoroughly confused and perplexed by those who consider it one of the greatest in the genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read any of Steve Erickson's books. I wouldn't know if he's a joke of a writer or not. I haven't heard anything bad about him, that I remember at least.

I've read Malazan though. You must have met some seriously mature and talented 12 year olds. Or maybe your criticism is just ridiculous and exaggerated, and you just disliked it, but decided to troll here to see what replies you could get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lucky reader



seconded. there's plenty of far worse books out there. GotM doesn't do it for me, but it's not at steppenwolf/the stranger/notes from the underground levels of worthlessness, say. how does it compare to ayn rand? ann coulter? goodkind? stanek?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, I rephrased a couple of the more hyperbolic statements. It may not be the actual worst written piece of overrated garbage to ever hit the shelves of a book store but it is the worst written piece of overrated garbage that I have ever purchased. That much is a factual statement.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read any of Steve Erickson's books. I wouldn't know if he's a joke of a writer or not. I haven't heard anything bad about him, that I remember at least.

I've read Malazan though. You must have met some seriously mature and talented 12 year olds. Or maybe your criticism is just ridiculous and exaggerated, and you just disliked it, but decided to troll here to see what replies you could get.

Not trolling. GotM reads exactly like something I would have written when I was twelve. I was considered a very precocious writer who was writing at a college level at age ten but I never bothered to further develop those skills in high school and pursued a completely unrelated degree in college. It's probably not fair to put the whole thing on that level but, again, it's a reflection of my disgust and confusion over the extreme overrating of this series that I consider to be more "hyperbolic" than anything that I have said here today.

Maybe I'll consider going back and revising a few statements later but right now I'm in a hurry. The best I could do was apologize at the end of the post because I know it was harsh but it's how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, I rephrased a couple of the more hyperbolic statements. It may not be the actual worst written piece of overrated garbage to ever hit the shelves of a book store but it is the worst written piece of overrated garbage that I have ever purchased. That much is a factual statement.

Not correct. That is an opinion, not a factual statement. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it might be a true and accurate representation of the opinion, perhaps. but, then, of course, what ultimately is the distinction between descriptive and normative statements? certainly the empiricist reviews evidence and then concludes on the basis of same that such and such is the case? and this is what is tendered by our empiricists as descriptive statements, the 'facts.' the problem with the distinction is that the empiricist will in the course of reviewing the relevant data come to a point at which data can be concluded to be sufficient to support the conclusion. this in itself is a normative and evaluative conclusion, rather than a purely descriptive, factual one. the data is 'good enough' to compel the conclusion. but we must back up, as the determination of which data are relevant is itself also a normative conclusion that prefigures the allegedly empirical analysis of the data: one must first determine which evidence has a sufficiently strong relation to the question, i.e., which sets of data's relationship to the issue is 'good enough' for consideration.



dax is accordingly surrounded by opinion. what then might be said of the opinion that GotM is the worst book s/he's ever read? de gustibus non est disputandem, maybe?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trolling. GotM reads exactly like something I would have written when I was twelve.

Wish I could have cashed that cheque. I'd happily read your scathing reviews and wipe away the tears with cash. It'd kill me if I genuinely knew I could have written a best seller because it would leaving me asking why I didn't. Then again, I'd happily write something others considered garbage as long as some loved it. I guess others have higher standards which I can only applaud.

I hope sharing your views has been therapeutic or will your soul not feel cleansed until you've convinced everyone else of this deep truth?

I haven't read the books mainly because it is so divisive and while you may be over-reacting I realise that for you to feel that way makes me hesitant to try the series. Book one still sits on my shelf. Your post has done some good.

*reaches for popcorn*

Excellent first reply :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the love for Twilight.


I don't understand the love for Dan Brown.


I don't understand how I can't believe it's not butter.



Taste is messed up man.




And an opinion can only be a fact to the person who gives the opinion. You think it's a bad book, that is your opinion and not a fact.



Sounds like trolling to me.



Quick statement on how Malazan sucks and then a quick exit stage right.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read any of Steve Erickson's books. I wouldn't know if he's a joke of a writer or not. I haven't heard anything bad about him, that I remember at least.

I've read Malazan though. You must have met some seriously mature and talented 12 year olds. Or maybe your criticism is just ridiculous and exaggerated, and you just disliked it, but decided to troll here to see what replies you could get.

Steve Erickson is an excellent writer. Arc d'X and Zeroville are just two of his novels that I really enjoyed.

It never fails to amuse me when I see someone start a post blasting the Malazan books and they fail to spell Steven Erikson's name correctly. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Erickson is an excellent writer. Arc d'X and Zeroville are just two of his novels that I really enjoyed.

It never fails to amuse me when I see someone start a post blasting the Malazan books and they fail to spell Steven Erikson's name correctly. :P

Cool, I'll check him out! I've been intrigued ever since I started to read Steven Erikson and saw people calling him Steve Erickson. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity to the ''precocious'' OP. What other books have you purchased that you can call the entire series horrible just by one book?



One bad book in a series does not make a series crap. Just look at The Wheel of Time.



I personally liked GOTM and had no trouble following the storyline. I liked that Erikson let us figure things out for ourselves after starting in the middle of the story. As he says, opening a window.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not correct. That is an opinion, not a factual statement. Try again.

Oh ok, so I have actually purchased something that was worse written and more overrated? The opinion component of that statement is that it is poorly written and overrated but the factual component is that it is the worst written, most overrated book I have purchased. If it wasn't, then I wouldn't have this opinion of it in the first place as that distinction would go to some other book collecting dust on my book shelf or in my garage.

I do hope you all realize that everyone is entitled to an opinion and that not everyone will share the same high opinion of something that you do. I have asked legitimate questions but apparently the love for Erikson and this series is so high that people would rather just be offended and dismiss me as a troll then provide me with legitimate answers and explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your opinion is. This one book is bad and that means every other book in the series is bad. Don't judge a series by one book that may have failed to meet your expectations. Read another book before you decide it's the worst thing in published history.



YOU. CANNOT. JUDGE. A. SERIES. ON. ONE. BOOK. ALONE. :)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...