The Malazan Book of the Fallen is done!

[Zach H]

Toll the Hounds? Really? I think Toll the Hounds is close to being the worst book I've read in the past decade and it's certainly the one that pushed me into completely giving up on the series.

I loved it. Thought it was a great exercise in voice that articulated the meeting place between large scale epic strife and the quiet and sometimes mundane moments of the lives that make up a city.

[Gormenghast]

the more grounded historical fiction-like approach preferred by other writers.

But consider that even in our "historical" world there were plenty of gods and actions done in the name of gods.

In the Philippines there are plenty of local legends who still have significant impact on today's life. I'm reading Kiernan's "The Red Tree" where she dwells on the popular legends of New England. Erikson direct inspiration is the greek mythology and he himself defined the series "Homeric".

(want to check some strong threads between the real world and the Malazan series? Erikson published a rather long article on his own website where he explains lots of things)

The Greek's gods were not so unlike Malazan gods, each with their own influence/aspect, meddling with mortals and still having very un-godlike behaviors. In the history of OUR world gods and beliefs had always a predominant role, and there's only this recent segment that is dwarfed by our whole timeline where "reason" is starting to have a more predominant role, and maybe only if you look at the western world.

If someone has a background on anthropology he'd find countless references on the origin of beliefs and its forms. Which means: in the end the whole, apparently alien, magic system/mythology in the Malazan series is deeply rooted into processes that are "true" to our world, and it's all made to have a point, and not just to be "cool" and self-referential other-worldy.

Things aren't created to look spectacular and fancy, they are created because Erikson has a point and wants to deliver a particular story that is very true to OUR world and humanity in general. (which is why he recently states that he does not write for escapism, even if there's absolutely nothing wrong in writing solely for escapism)

So what book in the Malazan series are you up to now, btw?

Behind me: the first four books, all four novellas and Night of Knives. Ahead: the rest.

[ljkeane]

I loved it. Thought it was a great exercise in voice that articulated the meeting place between large scale epic strife and the quiet and sometimes mundane moments of the lives that make up a city.

I thought it was a mind numbingly boring exercise in spending hundreds of pages examining the mundane moments of the lives of rubbish characters spouting crap that is neither as profound as Erikson appears to think nor particularly interesting.

[Gormenghast]

There's a woman from a completely unrelated forum, with no hidden agenda or reason to diss Erikson or defend him. She read all books in the last few months so this makes her a sort of perfect candidate to ask if it's true that after book 5 the series goes down in quality or switches style or whatever. She's someone who isn't involved in forums war or politics, nor influenced by anyone. Having read all the books one after the other without delays, she'd probably have a good idea if at some point there's a change. I asked her if she noticed anything and here's her reply:

I don't think there was really a structural difference, but I think there was definite shift in tone. There was much less of the humor that had broke up the previous books, and just an overall feeling of sadness. I mean, there's a lot of bad things that happen in the previous books, but there were good things, too. Things are definitely much darker in the later books.

She said she had an harder time going through the later books, not because of quality going down, but because they got darker and darker.

My other favorite writer is, as I already said, David Foster Wallace. And while he's a "big" literary name who gets a lot more recognition, he was still frequently criticized and dissed in similar ways. Lots of people say that DWF can't write a story or characters you care for. That all he writes is horribly convoluted and showy, like a very intelligent kid who wants to show just how smart he is.

These are the sort of critics that PAIN me, because DFW was one of the most generous writers in history whose modesty was greater than ANYONE out there. One of the few, sporadic voices that are truly authentic, barren of rhetoric. It takes a huge courage to drop all conceits and write honestly and truthfully. DFW didn't survive his craft, and it is because of how authentic and personal the pain on the page was. It's a crime laughing in the face of someone who tries to speak to you, for once, honestly. I see the same honesty and truthfulness in Erikson, Roberto Bolano is another. For me it is essential, in a book as in everything else, the lack of rhetoric and hypocrisy. These qualities define my favorite writers no matter of genres.

There are big, renowned writers like Pynchon or Gene Wolfe in the genre, that I thoroughly enjoy but I'll never fully appreciate. The reason is that they are elitist and esoteric. They don't give a shit if readers don't follow them because they speak solely to themselves and whoever they think is their elite. They are what I consider ungenerous writers. (also Stephen King wrote comments about this aspect in the introduction to The Gunslinger) Wolfe writes wonderful prose, but I always feel like he says very simple things in the most complicate and ornate way. That's not a skill, the opposite is. Both DFW and Erikson have horribly convoluted narrative and mythologies, but they don't ask the reader a certain standard of admission, they just ask for patience. They are generous and you'll be rewarded as long you are patient and willingly to follow where they try to lead you. You, as a reader, just have to offer your willingness.

It seems to me, from what he writes, that Stego appreciates that type of structure and writing skill that is strictly standardized and honed. The stuff they teach in school, stay within the lines and follow all the rules. A story whose typology requires a very specific way to work in the specific canon. The formal system of rules that, once you learn them, can easily and surely applied to say what is good and what is wrong. And so you can very clearly spell what is good and what is shit with absolute certainty. You got your rules.

But writing can be so much more than that. And some writers, DWF for sure, Erikson accordingly to my own view, try to break through the wall of rhetoric and rigid structures. (also a reason why for example Esslemont is nowhere where Erikson is as a writer)

Erikson wrote in a recent blog:

Oddly enough, I often start a chapter with a sense of mental exhaustion, as if I’ve run out of places to hide and besides, I’m too tired to run anymore. This is when I find my best writing — all the conceits and intellectual crapology have withered away, and I feel emptied from the inside out.

An old friend into such things has suggested that I am then ready to channel someone else’s voice and vision — that I simply become a conduit without static interference.

Why he does that? Because what he looks for is an authentic voice that is barren of ornaments and deceits. He wants to tap on something honest and true. You may think that the strict schedule makes the books crap, but it may be instead what fuels them of what is valuable. Sure, a lot more polishing would have wiped all problems with the timeline and maybe make the narrative more streamlined and precise, but I doubt it would do anything for what's actually valuable in the books, which is the point of the story and the beautiful lucidity (and truthfulness) of the writing.

I'm actually "sorry" that Stego (or anyone else) can't find anything of worth in Erikson's books, because there's actually so much there and it's a pity that more people can't share those gifts. There's nothing like these books that makes me want to share with others. Because they hold important truths and are filled with wonders.

But I have not the arrogance to tell someone that what he reads is utter shit simply because I can't find anything of value there. It's a matter or respect and modesty.

[Zach H]

I thought it was a mind numbingly boring exercise in spending hundreds of pages examining the mundane moments of the lives of rubbish characters spouting crap that is neither as profound as Erikson appears to think nor particularly interesting.

Gotcha. I guess we disagree. That's cool.

[David Selig]

I wonder how many of the plotlines will get any kind of closure. It's given quite a few, and pretty significant ones, won't, because they are planned for Esselmont books or the Karsa trilogy, but I can easily some of the others being left open too.

I am one of those who think the series underwent a sharp decline in quality after Book 5. A real shame, since MoI and DHG were really great, the rest of the first 5 very good too. Then Erikson increased the philosophical ramblings to an unbearable degree and decided that instead of around 10 reasonably well developed PoV characters per book it would be cooler to have about 70, none of which is a memorable and which can't be told apart.

[Old Nan]

The Greek's gods were not so unlike Malazan gods, each with their own influence/aspect, meddling with mortals and still having very un-godlike behaviors. In the history of OUR world gods and beliefs had always a predominant role, and there's only this recent segment that is dwarfed by our whole timeline where "reason" is starting to have a more predominant role, and maybe only if you look at the western world.

The Greek gods didn't have a well-nigh incomprehensible metaphysics to explain why they were divine, nor were the Greek myths driven by such a metaphysical conceit the way the Malazan plot is driven by Erikson's MC Escher-esque construct of warrens and holds and curses and thrones and such. In fact, I honestly can't think of any religion that is.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Jordan didn't write those books quite as fast as their release schedule indicates (though still in 14-16 months each' date=' which is still impressive). [/quote']

Erikson doesn't write his books in a year either. Time between releases has been about 15 or 16 months.

Erikson's problems are uniquely his. Objectivism is very different than similar characters and Erikson's characters are many things but nigh innvincible Gary Stus is not one of them.

I agree' date=' and that is why the books tend to attract so much discussion on this board.

This is the other part of the equation of course, Malazan fans are often very condescending towards those who aren't fans, which prompts a strong reaction.

Well, I guess this one random woman settles that.

A feature that apparently does not extend to his fans.

Huh? Do you know what they teach in schools? Creative writing programs are very much about playing with and breaking the rules.

It's interesting that I have much the same reaction to your writing as I do to Erikson's. I find that in many cases the ideas are interesting, while the execution and presentation are lacking, and often the actually substance is completely wrongheaded in a way that makes me think we must view the world in completely different ways.

You do realize this is a world where people can shape shift into dragons, there's entire cultures devoted to being uber swordsman, soulstealing swords, world shattering hammers, flying mountains, and undead caveman that turn to dust and then reassemble themselves. The spectacular and fancy nature of the world is a big part of the appeal. And with it's RPG roots I'm quite certain the "wow! cool!" factor came before the intellectual point.

You think a lack of rhetoric is a signature of Erikson's style but I think the opposite. If characters or the narrative stops to speechify without good reason than the work is engaging in rhetoric and this is a near constant in Erikson's works. I really don't know what you mean by truthfulness and generousness. Erikson is exclusive, anyone who is not very familiar with stands a good chance of bouncing off his works, heck even a decent amount who are aware of the tropes finds his works confusing and uninviting. It seems to me he works very hard to be exclusive. And as for truthfulness, Erikson always backs away from the specific and focuses on the universal, which I find lame. It betrays a lack of faith in his readers when he insists on waxing philosophical about issues instead of displaying a specific event and allowing the readers to draw a universal from it. It is especially irksome when the characters go on about universals when they should actually be concerned with specifics. Kalam should be concerned about what she did to him not whether or not she speaks with the voice of an empire.

[Gormenghast]

I thought it was a mind numbingly boring exercise in spending hundreds of pages examining the mundane moments of the lives of rubbish characters spouting crap that is neither as profound as Erikson appears to think nor particularly interesting

This comment reveals a lot, and it is because it could be true for EVERY book.

If one isn't interested in the voice of the writer, the plot or characters, then every book can become an intolerable boring chore.

In the series Erikson doesn't retread water or stick to a successful proven pattern, every book does different things in different ways. There are many disparate facets and a broad scope. This mean that if a reader doesn't find Erikson's own voice particularly appealing, he'll pick only SOME elements that he thinks are good and enjoy those while suffering through others. When books are very long this means that selective readers may enjoy 200 pages out of 800, and claim that the remaining 600 should be cut because they do not match their own interest. And when Erikson points the attention to something else those readers will be ready to call the books crap.

Is the quality of the writing really worse or it is just that Erikson's own personal direction isn't the one shared by some readers? Is the load of useless indulgent crap that people claim should be edited out really extraneous or it is just stuff that doesn't match a particular expectation and demand and so is refused?

[ljkeane]

Is the quality of the writing really worse or it is just that Erikson's own personal direction isn't the one shared by some readers? Is the load of useless indulgent crap that people claim should be edited out really extraneous or it is just stuff that doesn't match a particular expectation and demand and so is refused?

This comment also reveals a lot as it could be about every book. Perhaps you should actually read the books then you wouldn't be limited to such inane platitudes?

ETA: Oh and I didn't enjoy 200 pages of Toll the Hounds, I expect the number of pages I enjoyed was in single figures. I really hate that book.

[Mme Erzulie]

I really like GotM. And DG. After that, the series took a turn for the worse for me. I've tried 3 times now to get past the Edur book (Bonehunters?), but I just can't do it. I have completely lost interest. I'm more tempted to read the final few books of WoT (I gave up on that as well around book 8 or 9, years ago).

And I'm a bit uncertain how many Important Human Themes you're allowed to claim for your series when it did, in fact, start out as D&D fanfic. Saying that all these über-dudes are there for the communication of some convoluted point about the human experience is humbug, in my opinion. Now, I don't mind über-dudes every now and then, and enjoyed reading about Rake and Karsa, but I'm not gonna try and excuse my enjoyment of them by pretending they are something more than they are.

[Gormenghast]

And I'm a bit uncertain how many Important Human Themes you're allowed to claim for your series when it did, in fact, start out as D&D fanfic.

In fact, it didn't.

You remind me of the troll on his blog:

A word of advice: stop taking yourself so fucking seriously! Fantasy is entertainment, no more, no less. Beyond that you runs the risk of turning into a Terry Goodkind clone, for the love of God.

Erikson's reply:

Hmm, how’s this for advice: don’t give advice. The notion that entertainment can’t be serious certainly defines your position on things. That I beg to differ defines mine. Shall we leave it at that?

[fionwe1987]

In fact, it didn't.

Ummm... In fact, it did. And, in fact, you haven't read all the books, especially not those that most readers here are criticizing. How about you do that first?

[Stego]

I like how you're so absoolute and extreme in your labels. No, seriously, I kinda like it. It's rare for an English-speaking board.

That said, with all its problems Gardens of the Moon is still far superior to 99% of the Fantasy debuts out there. And then you have books 2 through 5 which are on a completely different level.

Also, if you want, I'd be interested in reading your view as to why liking Malazan would mean not having read a lot of fantasy. I notice you didn't answer my last post.

I didn't know there was a question. Sorry.

I'd say Gardens is superior to 75% of the fantasy debuts out there. That's fair. That still falls squarely in the crap camp, IMO.

There are many wonderful epic fantasies out there with tight plotting, cogent storytelling, immersive worlds, and endearing characters. Malazan some endearing characters, but lacks in the other areas. It tries to make up for this in super-duper godlike powers!!11 Erikson uses more Deus Ex Machina than a Greek playwright.

You can like Malazan all you want. I liked some mediocre shit in my youth. I'll not judge you as a human being for it. However, I would reccomend you try reading The Dragon Waiting, The Wizard Knight, Tigana, Nifft The Lean, The Dying Earth, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, as well as modern favorites like Hobb, Jordan, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Abraham, and Lynch.

All of these stories/authors have beginnings and endings to their stories. They tell cogent stories. Erikson is writing a story for himself alone, or perhaps his lackey whatsisname. He does not give the reader all the information required to tell a story, and not in the manner of a Delany or Wolfe where one is challenging the reader; no, Erikson just fails at expressing himself. (Unless he writing about fireballs. Homeboy can write about some fucking fireballs. I bet he's a damn fine DM -- but he spent too much time on this particular book.)

ETA: Erikson could have used some lessons from JK Rowling on letting magic be a tool and not a character itself.

Also ETA: Was the question aimed at me? I was able to read 4 and a half of these things before I quit for good. Life is too short.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

There's a woman from a completely unrelated forum

This post amused me greatly, as I recognized the quotation you used. Always fun to notice someone else who's on more than one of the same boards I'm on.

[Gormenghast]

All of these stories/authors have beginnings and endings to their stories. They tell cogent stories. Erikson is writing a story for himself alone, or perhaps his lackey whatsisname.

I really would love to see your opinion of Infinite Jest or The Broom of the System, since those novel do not have a beginning, nor an end ;)

Yet they are absolute masterpieces (Infinite Jest on a greater lever since it "contains" the other).

[Roland_85]

You can like Malazan all you want. I liked some mediocre shit in my youth. I'll not judge you as a human being for it. However, I would reccomend you try reading The Dragon Waiting, The Wizard Knight, Tigana, Nifft The Lean, The Dying Earth, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, as well as modern favorites like Hobb, Jordan, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Abraham, and Lynch.

All of these stories/authors have beginnings and endings to their stories. They tell cogent stories. Erikson is writing a story for himself alone, or perhaps his lackey whatsisname. He does not give the reader all the information required to tell a story, and not in the manner of a Delany or Wolfe where one is challenging the reader; no, Erikson just fails at expressing himself. (Unless he writing about fireballs. Homeboy can write about some fucking fireballs. I bet he's a damn fine DM -- but he spent too much time on this particular book.)

From those I've read Wolfe, Kay, Vance, Hobb, Jordan, Rothfuss and Lynch, with Abercrombie and Abraham on my To Read list. I still think Erikson is among the best, even if I agree with almost ALL of the criticisms in this topic and consider the last few novels rather of the "fail" persuasion. I am yet to read a single fantasy novel - standalone or part of a series - that comes even close to Deadhouse Gates or Midnight Tides. Those are also books with clear beginning and ending btw.

[Gormenghast]

I am yet to read a single fantasy novel - standalone or part of a series - that comes even close to Deadhouse Gates or Midnight Tides. Those are also books with clear beginning and ending btw.

Well, House of Chains is even better wrapped up and focused than DG. Also a more cohesive structure and more even writing. MoI is all over the place and more chaotic, but it still has a clear ending as well, not a clear beginning since it flows directly after GotM and is tied with DG, but the ending is there.

Can you elaborate avoiding spoilers why you consider the other books "fail" or why they are so wildly different from the rest to be judged like that?

[Roland_85]

I disliked House of Chains' main storyline, that is - the part after Karsa. And besides, the ending of book 2 is - to me- the best ending of a fantasy novel ever written in terms of epics and pure heroism.

As for books 6-8 (I'm yet to read book 9), here's my spoiler-free opinion from the SFF board:

I have a little chip on my shoulder where Erikson is concerned, tbh. The first three books of the series turned my perspective of fantasy upside down. I was utterly in love with it, I breathed this world. I still do, to an extent, where books 1-5 are concerned. Then the most weird thing happened: Erikson turned my perspective of bad fantasy upside down too, by managing to mess up different elements with every new installment.

The Bonehunters was basically a big chunk of nothing-happening with two 100-page gorgeous action-sequences in it - one in the middle, and one in the end.

Reaper's Gale was filled with plot-threads ending in the most ridiculous ways - the Sengar parents' one for example -and generally gave the impression that Erikson simply didn't know what to do with so many characters. Also, this was the first book where nothing happened for the ENTIRE length of the novel, until the obligatory convergence in the end.

Toll the Hounds's structure was painful to the extreme (and from what I hear, it has been kept in Dust of Dreams) - five pages of one character - jump to the next, five pages of the new character - jump to the next. With the first two and a half pages of every entry filled with the character's emo-introspections. Repeat ad nauseum. And again - 800 pages of build-up usually lead to disappointment, and I don't think any amount of Epic Ancient Revelations And Mighty Godlike Powers Converging could balance that much inaction.

Also, Erikson seems to me to have lost the balance between rich language and overstyling, and what used to be beautiful to me, is now just tediously loquacious. Plus, of course, the nihilist philosophizing on the pointlessness of pointlessness and the death of dust and dust of death and so forth is way too much like a late Frank Herbert rambling for me to be able to care.

I say all of this with the admission that I still like the Malazan series, and the only reason I haven't read Dust of Dreams yet is because I'm waiting for The Crippled God to get closer. I am also planning a reread with the hope that I will be able to appreciate books 6-8 more the second time around. It's just that the magic is - for now at least - gone for me.

[The Evil Hat]

I can sort of see people's complaints with the later books if I sort of squint and turn my head sideways, but it's like we're just reading fundamentally different books (or maybe we're just fundamentally different readers), and I can rarely say that I actually agree with those complaints.

I mean, (and I don't mean to pick on you, Roland, I just don't have the energy to right a broader post at the moment - road trip's are draining, hellish things) I didn't see Reaper's Gale like that at all. To a degree, I see what you mean, in that the champions thread, for instance, sat in stasis without progressing until the end, but the book as a whole felt filled with events. Hell,

the place was fucking INVADED halfway through!

And, while I thought that the book was extremely disjointed, I thought it was more a problem of having a bevy of fast paced plots all struggling against each other, rather than just having an all encompassing melange.

Toll the Hounds, though, I can't argue about. For me, it was a revelation, a truly special book that has (and I am not kidding here) changed the way I think about certain things. But that reaction is a personal thing, and I'll admit that, from a plot perspective, it's a disaster, and that the joy I got from it (the prose and some of the often maligned themes) are certainly an idiosyncratic pleasure that I don't think everyone would enjoy. And I'll just say, once again, that I don't mean that in a "you don't get it!" way, I'm not claiming that you're inferior for liking the book, I'm just saying that I liked the intangible feel that was between the pages, and that I'm not surprised that most people hated it.

I have a question for those who view Malazan like a video game. It's something I've really never understood. I've wondered about this on my blog, but I'll just ask it here: how does Toll the Hounds fit into that? Failure as it may be to you, I don't see how it's possible to claim that it's just a mindless action book.