I bought the first book of Malazan. Was it stupid?

[Myshkin]

I disagree. Erikson has a lot more about philosophy going on, but he targets a much broader range of subjects and engages with them to a shallower degree.

I think this can be said about the series as a whole. My main problem with Malazan, other than the fairly atrocious writing, is how shockingly shallow everything about it is. Erikson casts a wide net, and you'll hear fans talk about the epic scope of his story, but there's pretty much nothing below the surface.

Also Gormenghast, how many of the books have you actually read? I recall the last time I engaged with you on this subject you held some pretty strong opinions about the series as a whole, and its detractors, for someone who hadn't yet finished the second book.

[Darth Richard II]

That seems to be the thing really, you either love his writing or you hate it. Never seen any one express and opinion in between.

[Astromech]

That seems to be the thing really, you either love his writing or you hate it. Never seen any one express and opinion in between.

Well then let me be the first. I don't love or hate his writing, but I was entertained by the story/stories. I honestly do understand and agree with many of the criticisms of MBOTF. However, I was able to overlook them due to the story itself. If I were to do a re-read of the MBOTF, I would skip a number of the boring and tedious storylines. I also have to admit that I only read two of Ian C. Esslemont's novels. I enjoyed Erikson's writing much more.

[Werthead]

That seems to be the thing really, you either love his writing or you hate it. Never seen any one express and opinion in between.

That's a bit of a simplification. I think lots of people like the early books and dislike the later ones. Others hate the early ones and love the later ones. Certainly we see in every Erikson threat people who like the books "but..."

I think that Erikson's issue is that his prose skills improved markedly over the course of the series, to the point where DoD and TCG feel like they were written by a completely different writer to the guy who did GotM. However, his plotting and character skills seem to have degraded over the course of the books, quite badly. I think the series as a whole is still very good, but it's very unbalanced and, just to be annoying, bits of it will appeal or turn off completely different groups of readers. It's the most inconsistent and Marmitey fantasy series ever written.

I think this can be said about the series as a whole. My main problem with Malazan, other than the fairly atrocious writing, is how shockingly shallow everything about it is. Erikson casts a wide net, and you'll hear fans talk about the epic scope of his story, but there's pretty much nothing below the surface.

I agree. I see a lot of people talking about the hundreds of thousands of years of history, but there's absolutely nothing there in the books. You can say x happened 300,000 years ago and then y happened 150,000 years ago and then the Crippled God was chained and then the Malazan Empire was founded and here we are. The history in the books is non-existent compared to almost any other fantasy series. I appreciate that on some level (the books are big enough without unnecessary multi-page exposition scenes about stuff that happened 300 years ago), but on others it makes the thing feel off-kilter.

Also Gormenghast, how many of the books have you actually read? I recall the last time I engaged with you on this subject you held some pretty strong opinions about the series as a whole, and its detractors, for someone who hadn't yet finished the second book.

I believe Gormenghast has read up to The Bonehunters and then Forge of Darkness, as of the last update he gave us.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I super over simplified that. No sleep + Dentist makes Darth Richard an angry sith.

[polishgenius]

Erikson is definitely 'broad but not deep', but what he does do well in the worldbuilding respect is in showing fragments of cultures and the remains of history. That's where his background as an archeologist comes in.

The numbers in the deep backstory just make no sense whatsoever, though. I reckon you could easily take one or two zeroes off most dates, including how long FoD takes place before the main series, with no ill effect whatsoever.

The fact that he still can't keep the timeline straight doesn't help. I really hope we get some good explanation for the seeming incongruencies in FoD, because otherwise that was a much more focused and defined book than most of the later half of the series.

Also, while he's not a character author, and individually his don't have the depth of some, I really enjoy the relationships between them that he builds (but not the romances, which are mostly terrible). He also does really good archetypal myth-hero.

[The Marquis de Leech]

But now I have been stuck three thirds through the fourth book, House of Chains for, I don't know, I think I haven't touched it in half a year?

I remember that feeling: I had to force myself through House of Chains. Midnight Tides then proved almost as good as Memories of Ice.

After this thread, I've made another attempt on The Bonehunters. I'm currently 400-odd pages in, and there's still nothing that couldn't have been dealt with in 40 pages, but damn it, this time I'm finishing.

[polishgenius]

The ending of The Bonehunters is fucking awesome. Whatever criticisms there are of Erikson, there's no denying he knows how to do a grand finale, and Bonehunters is one of the best of them.

[Errant Bard]

The ending of The Bonehunters is fucking awesome. Whatever criticisms there are of Erikson, there's no denying he knows how to do a grand finale, and Bonehunters is one of the best of them.

What happens in the end already? Is this a big battle with ghosts? Or a big battle where they attack the empress? Arg, I did read it though.

I think you're right: From my point of view Erikson does "awesome" endings, in the same sense that Michael Bay does "awesome" films: everything explodes, bleeds, cries, and triggers some sappy melodrama (entirely too much unbelievable, corny, sappy melodrama)... when you see it the first time it's extremely entertaining, by the third time it got old, and there is so little depth or meaning beyond the easy pathos that nothing is memorable.

So I guess there is some denying.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Counterpoint: The Bonehunter's finale was bad enough that I stopped reading the series.

[polishgenius]

What happens in the end already? Is this a big battle with ghosts? Or a big battle where they attack the empress? Arg, I did read it though.

Bonehunters is the one where we finally see Icarium lose his shit and attack the Throne of Shadow.

Mind, there was a bit of Eres Ex Machina in how he was stopped, but the aftermath of it, with Trull and Cotillion's interaction and Cotillion's disbelieving relief, made it okay.

I've really got to disagree with the Michael Bay comparison. More Fury Road George Miller (though SE could do with taking lessons in editing and compact storytelling from Miller).

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah, there arnt nearly enough tits and racism to be Michael Bay.

[Gormenghast]

Michael Bay does "awesome" films: everything explodes, bleeds, cries, and triggers some sappy melodrama (entirely too much unbelievable, corny, sappy melodrama)... when you see it the first time it's extremely entertaining, by the third time it got old, and there is so little depth or meaning beyond the easy pathos that nothing is memorable.

Michael Bay, awesome movies? Entertaining?

Erikson is literally Herzog. That's the best comparison, boundless ambition and always on the brink between failure and genius. That's Herzog. And that's what happens when you don't play safe.

If we go for conventional "Hollywood" writing, that's the opposite of Erikson style. Conventional is Martin (who comes from Hollywood and that style permeates, in both a good and bad way, what he does).

Martin is like, I don't know, Spielberg? Someone who knows very well what works and what doesn't because he works with a language polished to a shine. The "craft". But exactly because the language is so well codified, it cannot say anything new.

Basically Martin represents, within the genre, what Bakker defines as the standard literature that is unable to say anything meaningful.

There are writers that happily, comfortably and successfully (and legitimately) sit within a space created by others before them: Lynch, Abercrombie, Sanderson, Abraham and so on.

And then there are writers who go where no one else tries, or even wants. And the two I know are Bakker and Erikson.

So keep your shitty Michael Bay away from decent literature I read and appreciate, thank you.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Martin is Peter Jackson (IMHO). Made his name with shorter pieces, has a fondness for splatter, and previously associated with some excellent work. Now has severe problems with bloat.

[polishgenius]

Martin is like, I don't know, Spielberg? Someone who knows very well what works and what doesn't because he works with a language polished to a shine. The "craft". But exactly because the language is so well codified, it cannot say anything new.

See, I was just thinking that Spielberg is probably a better comparison to SE than George Miller because of the way they both understand, and utilise very very well, the idea that when it comes to action and big spectacle, the small moments that frame it matter as much as the spectacle itself.

Whereas Bakker cannot be described in any way as doing anything 'new', given that what he's done is taken Tolkien's world, smashed it together with HR Giger's design ethic, and filtered the result through Frank Herbert's philosophical concerns. It's quite brilliant fusion cooking, but it's not blazing any new trails. Hardly like the likes of Nnedi Okorafor or Jeff VanderMeer or even China Mieville.

It's also inaccurate and frankly ignorant to describe Spielberg as someone who works in a codified language and 'cannot say anything new' - Spielberg was the one who codified that language in the first place and is one of, if not the, most important pioneering directors ever.

[Errant Bard]

Bonehunters is the one where we finally see Icarium lose his shit and attack the Throne of Shadow.

Mind, there was a bit of Eres Ex Machina in how he was stopped, but the aftermath of it, with Trull and Cotillion's interaction and Cotillion's disbelieving relief, made it okay.

Oh, right, yes, I remember the Eres coming out of nowhere.

But even with your summary, I cannot remember the awesome. I think I was so little interested in the characters themselves that such a development did not made me care overly much.

I've really got to disagree with the Michael Bay comparison. More Fury Road George Miller (though SE could do with taking lessons in editing and compact storytelling from Miller).

I am not a cinephile, I cannot argue about your alternative choices as I don't even see who they are :)

What I meant was that Erikson liked spectacular, pathos and action-heavy finales devoid of any deeper meaning or long-lasting impact on the people who read it. I can remember the ending of The Long Price, for example, despite how subdued it is, I could not remember the ending of the Bonehunters despite how "awesome" and even controvertial (the "ex machina" you mentioned) it was at the time. A realisator of action blockbusters, who prefers explosion to actual content, seemed to fit.

[polishgenius]

I guess my disagreement is with the general notion that something that is pure spectacle is inherently empty and of somehow less worth than something with more thematic depth. Crafting a good action narrative is a skill in its own right, and in my opinion Erikson is very, very good at it. Bay is considered a bad director not because his films are big and loud and explodey, but because they're big and loud and explodey in a not-very-good way.

Obviously, you want some emotional connection and care for the characters, but I didn't have that problem with Malazan. He's not exactly subtle, but you don't always need subtle. That's another reason for the Spielberg comparison - his emotional strokes tend to be broad as well. Sometimes too much, and melodrama is certainly a valid accusation at times for both, but plenty of people find connection with their work, me among them.



If you haven't seen Fury Road (aka the new Mad Max), you should fix that immediately. :P

[Lansoon]

I'd like to talk about the ending of the [spoiler] the Jaghut Tryant being imprisoned in the Azarth House [/spoiler] in Gardens of the Moon. I think it was one big deus ex machina. I've been challenged on this point. With such arguements including that this is explained in later books, therefore it retroactiavely doesn't make it one. I don't buy that line of argument.

Does anybody want to comment on the qualities of Erikson's writing in the first book such as poor charaerization and dialogue.

[Errant Bard]

Crafting a good action narrative is a skill in its own right, and in my opinion Erikson is very, very good at it.

[...]

Obviously, you want some emotional connection and care for the characters, but I didn't have that problem with Malazan. He's not exactly subtle, but you don't always need subtle.

I found that the lack of subtility spoiled the thing after the first or second book: when all you can see are cardboard cutouts the author is making jerkily move, it kinda kills your immersion.

With that said, I honestly didn't notice anything great about the action scenes, it felt to me rather that Erikson was actually patching his lack of skill in action descriptions with over the top melodrama or gore. I mean

Icarium losing his shit, for example, is not impactful to you because the action is well described but rather because of what it means for the character, right?

Same for the end to the second book: big action there but the thing people remember is the death of that guy that the author is very heavy handed in telling us is tragic and shit.

So I'm not agreeing, in the end, that he is that good at it, only that he consistently put them in his endings.

If you haven't seen Fury Road (aka the new Mad Max), you should fix that immediately. :P

Meh, I think I'll go watch Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane first. (I really am not a movie guy :))

[Myshkin]

Comparing Steven Erikson to Werner Herzog? Time to lock this thread.