Question about Malazan

[kungtotte]

Now I like both authors, though I have to admit to liking Erikson more than Martin, but I feel Martin is a better writer....

who me? conflicted?

Erikson is the literary equivalent of Michael Bay. It's solid popcorn-entertainment; it has hot chicks, bad-asses, even badder bad-asses and lots of explosions. That's why people go to see Bay's movies. You can like them just fine and not have the audacity to claim Michael Bay is a good director.

That's why there's always an uproar regarding Malazan/Steven Erikson on these boards, because people don't want to admit that he's a Michael Bay-type author.

[Gormenghast]

The uproar is because people are hypocrites who don't admit prejudices.

Martin Vs Erikson always comes up because it has the traits of the typical fantasy Vs mainstream.

That's why certain posters want to reinforce stereotypes all the times. Erikson = comics. Erikson = mangas. Erikson = Michael Bay.

Erikson = fantasy = bad writing, juvenile.

Obviously you can't use fantasy as a stereotype here on this boards. You have to be so much more subtle.

[Werthead]

Erikson is the literary equivalent of Michael Bay. It's solid popcorn-entertainment; it has hot chicks, bad-asses, even badder bad-asses and lots of explosions. That's why people go to see Bay's movies. You can like them just fine and not have the audacity to claim Michael Bay is a good director.

That's why there's always an uproar regarding Malazan/Steven Erikson on these boards, because people don't want to admit that he's a Michael Bay-type author.

I think that's somewhat unfair. There is more to Malazan than that, or at least there is a much greater ambition than that. Bay can't do tragedy in particular, whilst Erikson excelled at it in the second and third books (but then overplayed it, making its use somewhat trite in the sixth and eighth books). My biggest gripe is that Erikson makes a lot of claims about seeding literary ideas and themes into his books, but they are usually simplistic and unchallenging (no-one will argue that war and ultra-capitalism are bad, that a nice and supportive family life is a good thing and so on) whilst simultaneously bogging down the actual narrative and pacing. If he was tackling bigger or more sophisticated ideas (like Bakker does in Prince of Nothing about the deepest roots of faith and so forth) this would be less of an issue.

[blackzoid]

Indeed, there does seem to be a lot more criticism of the Malazan books on this forum then other Fantasy forums and non-fantasy forums. Perhaps thats because this site gets more traffic, I don't know.

And calling him the Michael Bay author is being very unfair on him.

Certainly people who read the much criticised Toll the Hounds would not say that the book was wall to wall explosions and hot chicks. (Was there actually any hot chicks in that book?. And all the action more or less happened in the last quarter)

[Horza]

You're right, Michael Bay isn't as pretentious.

[Kalbear]

I don't tend to like Malazan because of the lack of good characters and the horrible writing. The high fantasy isn't as much to my tastes, but there are plenty of books where I do like that; I just don't like Erikson's version of it.

[AverageGuy]

The uproar is because people are hypocrites who don't admit prejudices.

Martin Vs Erikson always comes up because it has the traits of the typical fantasy Vs mainstream.

Do you really not consider Martin typical fantasy? Because I think by the end of the first book, by the end of the first prologue, most anyone would recognize Martin's a fantasy author. The fact that the series is pretty much guaranteed to switch over to saving Westeros from the Others is going to make it clear to anyone who somehow didn't already realize it.

[Zach H]

If he was tackling bigger or more sophisticated ideas (like Bakker does in Prince of Nothing about the deepest roots of faith and so forth) this would be less of an issue.

I haven't read PoN, although based on Neuropath I don't doubt that Bakker's work goes into deeper levels of theory than Erikson's. Still, I myself tend to get more out of Malazan than the extreme basics (war is bad, etc.). As I said before, I loved the questions Bonehunters made me ask about the popular belief in god, while with my recent Reaper's Gale reading I thought the examination of both large scale and self destruction as a means of purification instilled a level of horror and profound sadness in me that I certainly haven't felt in the popcorn action movies I've seen. Not saying that Erikson doesn't have his share of action and explosions and all that. Just that I like that he does that stuff while also offering sections of prose and ideas that I myself enjoy in a "literary" manner.

Anyway, as I've also said before I like both Malazan and Ice and Fire, for different reasons and in different ways. Martin builds an in-depth narrative and creates fully realized characters that manage to inhabit my headspace long after I've finished one of his books. Erikson creates the line by line prose that I feel more desire to reread, and in general offers a storytelling experience more akin to getting a "live look" at history and all its messy, confusing, question-inducing detail.

[blackzoid]

If any one is interested, Erikson has two excellent (to my mind) posts on the "life as a human" website, detailing on the process of how he write his books.

http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/arts-culture/books/steven-eriksons-notes-on-a-crisis-part-iv-the-next-novel/

and to a lesser extant

http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/arts-culture/creativity/steven-eriksons-notes-on-a-crisis-part-v-diabolical-deceptions/

Pretentious? Possibly.

"Michael Bay Style" in intent? Hardly.

(Not that we know what goes on exactly inside the mind of Michael Bay when he makes his films. For all we know, he COULD be trying the cinematic equivalent of what Erikson tries to do)

[polishgenius]

I see where you're coming from with the Michael Bay comparison - the big action stuff and posturing fits as does his inability to write a romantic relationship that isn't hugely cheesy - but it's off the mark, I think. As well as the thematic depth Wert mentions which while not necessarily all that successful is beyond anything Bay does, there's simply the matter of storytelling skill. Bay's never a very good storyteller in the technical sense, whereas Erikson, while hugely uneven and occasionally quite bad, has a level of technical skill in writing way beyond Bay's technical skill in filmmaking.

Also, a lot of Erikson's flaws come about from aiming too high. You can never accuse Bay of aiming too high about anything. He's lowest-common-denominator fare and a fairly middling example, whereas Erikson definitely isn't that.

[kungtotte]

Indeed, there does seem to be a lot more criticism of the Malazan books on this forum then other Fantasy forums and non-fantasy forums. Perhaps thats because this site gets more traffic, I don't know.

It's just because Erikson is big right now. There's been plenty of criticism directed towards Goodkind too, for example. If it hadn't been Erikson it would've been someone else.

Also, this forum apparently has a reputation as being really grumpy :P

Certainly people who read the much criticised Toll the Hounds would not say that the book was wall to wall explosions and hot chicks. (Was there actually any hot chicks in that book?. And all the action more or less happened in the last quarter)

I can never keep the timelines and plotlines straight when it comes to Malazan, but...

... I'm pretty sure TtH had the Andii kids humping around Genabackis? The female ones are hot chicks, one of them is even a vampy hot chick. :)

Anyway, calling him the literary Michael Bay might be unfair, but it's just the simplest way I can express how I feel about his books. They're action-packed thrillrides where there are few deeper meanings and you'll be better served if you just sit back and enjoy the ride and don't worry so much about things like timelines etc.

[Guy Kilmore]

I do find Erikson to be "comic bookish" nor do I believe that comic books are "low brow". I would love to see Erikson's work as a comic book over that of a narrative, I think it would do some of his later works better. Dust of Dreams, narratively, was very slow for me and almost a slog. I understand why he did it that way, but I think it would be more pleasureable to see in a picture format. I think his work would lend well in that medium, better than written prose, because of the versitility that having a drawing would provide him.

He is definately ambitious.

[polishgenius]

It's just because Erikson is big right now. There's been plenty of criticism directed towards Goodkind too, for example. If it hadn't been Erikson it would've been someone else.

It's proportionally more criticism, though. Goodkind gets mostly pasted on most boards. Malazan is usually widely liked with a few dissenters, the ratio is very different here.

Although I think that it's difficult to tell because Malazan tends to attract extremes in discussion, in both directions. So people who like it and don't care about the flaws can come across as rabid fanboys who can't see the flaws, whereas people who do like it or were big fans and got impatient with it can come across as rabidly hating it even if they're not - and of course that perception then leads to the argument rapidly becoming that.

[kungtotte]

I think you might be on to something there. I really liked Malazan in the beginning, but then it got more and more convoluted and problematic and all I see now when I read it is all that squandered potential. I guess that's partially why I get involved in discussions about it, because I (used to) care about it. I don't give a runny shit about Goodkind and his work, so I mostly stay away from those discussions.

So yeah, if Malazan hadn't been so promising there would probably not have been as much debate over it.

[Horza]

He writes a lot about how ambitious his writing is when he's in fact churning out doorstopper fantasy novels because of a crazy ten book deal he signed on the strength of a novel based on a role-playing campaign.

[Werthead]

We do have a tendency here to keep threads about authors going on all the time, like with Erikson, Bakker and Goodkind (and, a bit more off and on, Abercrombie). We probably talk about Erikson more than any other SF&F forum bar only Malazanempire itself. Other forums only tend to talk about Erikson when a new book comes out (and then you do get some of the same points that have been raised here), whilst we have discussions ongoing, so it's unsurprising that the negativity comes out a bit more. A few years ago, certainly pre-Bonehunters, the series was far more warmly discussed here.

[kcf]

We do have a tendency here to keep threads about authors going on all the time, like with Erikson, Bakker and Goodkind (and, a bit more off and on, Abercrombie). We probably talk about Erikson more than any other SF&F forum bar only Malazanempire itself. Other forums only tend to talk about Erikson when a new book comes out (and then you do get some of the same points that have been raised here), whilst we have discussions ongoing, so it's unsurprising that the negativity comes out a bit more. A few years ago, certainly pre-Bonehunters, the series was far more warmly discussed here.

I find this has unfortunate consequences - I simply can't be bothered to read and participate much in threads of authors like Erikson or Jordan or a few others. They get overly long very quickly, contain far too much bitter and unnecessary negativity, and rarely have anything new or insightful to add.

[Blaine]

I don't tend to like Malazan because of the lack of good characters and the horrible writing. The high fantasy isn't as much to my tastes, but there are plenty of books where I do like that; I just don't like Erikson's version of it.

This is my opinion. It has jack all with not having read much "high fantasy" or "full fantasy", I've been reading fantasy novels for 20 years.

I just don't like the way Erikson writes. I don't care about his characters. I don't like his prose. And I feel like his storytelling style is to overcomplicate simple narrative to try and make up for his lack of ability.

I've read the first two books and I honestly wish I'd stopped after the first chapter of GotM, when I had the sinking feeling that this guy wasn't going to be for me. At the time, I really hoped for the best. Even ordered the books from the UK, as they were unavailable here. That probably explains why I kept reading until the end of Book 2. That and people promising me it would get better.

It doesn't get better.

[Myshkin]

The uproar is because people are hypocrites who don't admit prejudices.

Martin Vs Erikson always comes up because it has the traits of the typical fantasy Vs mainstream.

That's why certain posters want to reinforce stereotypes all the times. Erikson = comics. Erikson = mangas. Erikson = Michael Bay.

Erikson = fantasy = bad writing, juvenile.

Obviously you can't use fantasy as a stereotype here on this boards. You have to be so much more subtle.

Wrong. I don't give a good goddamn what Erikson writes about, I just think he's a poor writer. I think he has no idea how to construct a coherent plot, I think his characters are so flat as to be interchangeable with one another, I think his prose is weak and convoluted, I think his dialog is wooden and lifeless, I think his world is shockingly shallow once you get past all the fluff, I think his method of character development is cheap and lazy, I think his themes are nothing new and no where near as awe inspiring as he seems to think they are. I could go on, but you get the point. In case you don't though; I LOVE fantasy. I just don't like bad writing.

[Shryke]

I just wish he'd shut the fuck up with his boring, endless bullshit pseudo-deep philosophising. It's dragging down the series more and more with each volume.