Question about Malazan

[Gormenghast]

It does sound like a generic Forgotten Realms title, a comparison Erikson would probably not be thrilled by. The previous Malazan titles were fairly distinctive but this one is lame. Possibly a result of Erikson going ten years between having to come up with new titles?

Your obstinate attacks are also getting quite silly ;)

Come on, now the titles? Possibly a result that Erikson got so bad that he can't pick good titles anymore?

The title isn't that original, but I'd say it was just convenient considering the theme of the book. Erikson can also think of some awesome titles even recently, the proof is the divisions inside each book, each one ideally a title. Those in Dust of Dreams for examples were quite awesome:

The Sea Does Not Dream of You

Eaters of Diamonds and Gems

Only the Dust will Dance

The Path Forever Walked

[Werthead]

Reply amended to remove snark.

[Myshkin]

Reply amended to remove snark.

I missed the snark? Thanks a lot Wert, snark is about the only worthwhile thing about Malazan threads anymore.

Your obstinate attacks are also getting quite silly ;)

Come on, now the titles? Possibly a result that Erikson got so bad that he can't pick good titles anymore?

Come now, a person can no longer dislike a title without getting an earful from you?

[polishgenius]

It's amazing how Gormenghast makes me want to disagree with myself if I do happen to agree with something he says.

Still plenty of time for the title to change, mind...

[Werthead]

I've concluded that whenever Erikson goes into one of his bizarre, Goodkindesque anti-fantasy rants he's still writing from the perspective of a jaded ROLE-player (when such a distinction was less common than today) circa 1991, back when people were still giving David Eddings good reviews. Which is nice, but the genre has moved on a lot since then. It would be nice if he started talking about what Malazan brings to the table in 2010, but I suspect he's not well-read enough to comment on it with authority (and certainly not role-played enough; his advice that people 'role'-play more when that's been the primary movement of RPGs in the past decade is hilariously redundant).

[polishgenius]

To be fair, Erikson is hardly the only writer claiming originality he doesn't have. The pre-release noise for The Steel Remains for example gave the distinct impression that Morgan thought that people are still giving David Eddings good reviews. Not to mention Memory, Sorrow and Thorn hyping itself within its own pages as something different before embarking on... well, something not too much different.

Also, it's a bit harsh to compare Erikson to Goodkind. He can be cantankerous and sometimes self-aggrandising but Goodkind is outright deluded. Plus Erikson is capable of brilliance and I don't think Goodkind is.

[The Evil Hat]

The fact that Erikson derived his originality* by using the same techniques that others did, but arrived at a different goal, doesn't invalidate said originality. You wouldn't say that Bakker's series is unoriginal because of its RPG routes, even if it evolved out of them gradually in much the same way that Malazan did. Erikson isn't saying that he's original just because he modified D&D, that's just how he first got where he is.

*I'm not saying that he does or doesn't, here, just saying that this isn't the deciding factor

[End of Disc One]

I remember Patrick Rothfuss even saying that he wrote The Name of the Wind to break away from fantasy cliches.

[The Evil Hat]

I think that, to some extent, every author thinks they're breaking away from cliches. Barring fan fiction, I doubt even the most derivative authors really think that they're just regurgitating their idols without their own spin.

[Gormenghast]

Much less interesting is knowing that a writer goes against some cliches, as it is knowing WHY.

Erikson gave a snarky comment to ME, pointing out how going against a cliche is now a cliche as well.

[Gormenghast]

Wert:

Essays of this sort give the impression that the genre of fantasy that Erikson is talking about Malazan rejecting is a view of it consisting of sub-par D&D novels circa 1991. Which is fine but the genre (both in gaming and literature), the readers and the gamers have all moved on to more interesting pastures.

Indeed. The point where you're wrong is in assuming that Erikson is claiming the throne of originality or some kind of superiority to the rest of the genre. You're assuming again he's written that article with that purpose when instead he simply explained where the origins of the Malazan world are and what made them develop it in the way they did.

It's simply contextualized in history. Erikson has an age and comes from that specific background and influence. That's the origin. But he never said that his fiction today is unique and rare, or that there are no other writers that attempt at realism. He never wrote anything where he puts or elevates his work against the work of contemporary fantasy writers, if not in opposition to those that are part of his background and that gave him motivation to try something different.

It's like accusing Martin of championing fantasy with low-magic when he's also one of many trying to do it.

And it's also worth pointing out that the RPGs origin of the Malazan series is just one of many aspects it deals with and not the totality of what that work tries to do (playing and subverting some cliches).

[pat5150]

Fans of Erikson arguing among ourselves. . .

What is this world coming to!?! :P

Patrick

[End of Disc One]

Fans of Erikson arguing among ourselves. . .

What is this world coming to!?! :P

Patrick

Dude. It's Gormeghast.

[Werthead]

Indeed. The point where you're wrong is in assuming that Erikson is claiming the throne of originality or some kind of superiority to the rest of the genre.

You mean apart from the bit where he indicated that everyone writing fantasy back then apart from Cook and Donaldson sucked and that the Forgotten Realms sucked as a game product and that his gaming group did something other roleplayers did not by 'ROLE'-playing and making sweeping generalisations about the rest of fantasy in both gaming and writing?

Hmm.

To be fair, Erikson is hardly the only writer claiming originality he doesn't have. The pre-release noise for The Steel Remains for example gave the distinct impression that Morgan thought that people are still giving David Eddings good reviews. Not to mention Memory, Sorrow and Thorn hyping itself within its own pages as something different before embarking on... well, something not too much different.

I did think of mentioning Morgan but couldn't be bothered to get into that. MST, though, was a major evolutionary step forward in the development of the subgenre, maybe the biggest one since Donaldson and Brooks kicked things off a decade earlier. Rather like modern opinions of ASoIaF's 'grittiness', it's a huge mistake to say, "This is what started things," but it was the culmination of previous movements and was the first big series that took a more adult look at the genre (prior to MST most of epic fantasy was either for kids or kept kid-friendly and those that didn't were not immediately successful, like Cook) and set the scene for fantasy in the 1990s. Obviously reading it now it's not that different or challenging at all, but back in 1988 it was a bit more of a big deal.

Also, it's a bit harsh to compare Erikson to Goodkind. He can be cantankerous and sometimes self-aggrandising but Goodkind is outright deluded. Plus Erikson is capable of brilliance and I don't think Goodkind is.

Not to mention that the 'evil chickens' scene in Reaper's Gale is a sign of Erikson ripping the mickey out of Goodkind, which was quite amusing. And yes, Erikson is a vastly superior author. The two exist in completely seperate realms of writing ability. And Erikson often challenges his own assumptions (as he does a couple of times in the essay, although I don't think he went far enough), which is something Goodkind would never, ever do.

[polishgenius]

I did think of mentioning Morgan but couldn't be bothered to get into that. MST, though, was a major evolutionary step forward in the development of the subgenre, maybe the biggest one since Donaldson and Brooks kicked things off a decade earlier. Rather like modern opinions of ASoIaF's 'grittiness', it's a huge mistake to say, "This is what started things," but it was the culmination of previous movements and was the first big series that took a more adult look at the genre (prior to MST most of epic fantasy was either for kids or kept kid-friendly and those that didn't were not immediately successful, like Cook) and set the scene for fantasy in the 1990s. Obviously reading it now it's not that different or challenging at all, but back in 1988 it was a bit more of a big deal.

Fair enough. Might have to try reading it again, I didn't get that far into it because I found it too familiar and... well, really slow. The major source of the familiarity was Magician though, which was published earlier...

[Gormenghast]

You mean apart from the bit where he indicated that everyone writing fantasy back then apart from Cook and Donaldson sucked and that the Forgotten Realms sucked as a game product and that his gaming group did something other roleplayers did not by 'ROLE'-playing and making sweeping generalisations about the rest of fantasy in both gaming and writing?

"Sweeping generalizations" is the canon everyone employed 20-30 years ago. We didn't have the internet to seize control on whole genres. Erikson simply describes his perception of fantasy at that time and how it fueled his work. There's nowhere the claim that at the time he read every fantasy book published on Earth and judged them lacking.

The problem is that Erikson wrote an article to explain the links of the Malazan world with the RPG background while instead you're interpreting that article like it wanted to be an exhaustive treatise of the whole fantasy genre in the 80s.

[Arthmail]

Do you work at being so obtuse, Gormenghast, or does it come naturally?

[Horza]

I need to point out in Gormenghast's defence that clearly, as a human being there are large parts of his body that are not aligned at between 90-180 degrees.

[williamjm]

MST, though, was a major evolutionary step forward in the development of the subgenre, maybe the biggest one since Donaldson and Brooks kicked things off a decade earlier. Rather like modern opinions of ASoIaF's 'grittiness', it's a huge mistake to say, "This is what started things," but it was the culmination of previous movements and was the first big series that took a more adult look at the genre (prior to MST most of epic fantasy was either for kids or kept kid-friendly and those that didn't were not immediately successful, like Cook) and set the scene for fantasy in the 1990s. Obviously reading it now it's not that different or challenging at all, but back in 1988 it was a bit more of a big deal.

I know we're going off on a bit of a tangent here, but the Tomas Covenant series does seem a less derivative work than MST, it's certainly less child-friendly. It does seem like Donaldson maybe deserves more credit than Williams for having the first reasonably successful epic fantasy (I don't know how the sales figures compare to MS&T but I get the impression it did reasonably well) that was more than just a simple good guys vs bad guys story.

Fair enough. Might have to try reading it again, I didn't get that far into it because I found it too familiar and... well, really slow. The major source of the familiarity was Magician though, which was published earlier...

The start of MS&T is ridiculously slow-paced. It does improve near the end of the first book and in the later books, although there are still some pacing problems throughout the series. Overall, I did like the series (despite the overly saccharine ending) once I'd forced my way through the early parts of the story.

[PetrusOctavianus]

your task, dear reader, is to collect enough letters to be able to access the final upgrade payoff of "closure".

Good summary of Malazan.