Erikson's Reaper's Gale book review

[Arakasi]

I agree that the philosophising happens overly much and that Erikson should cut down on that. Honestly I don't think the issue is from his older characters. Quick Ben, Karsa, the bonehunters, etc are fine. What I have an issue with is more of the new characters who I think are there to espouse some belief. Like in this case the patriotists/etc. I see the points he's making, but they honestly don't interest me that much. What I like and have always liked from Erikson is the action and like Edd said the wow scenes. I made a point on this on the spoiler thread, but I think RG had almost the least amount of wow scenes in the series. I felt that was somewhat balanced out by the fact that this book didn't have as many lower quality stuff as previous books. But in ways I kinda like the amazing awe inspiring scenes, even if it has to come with some mediocre stuff.

I'd have to disagree on the plot twists. There were at least 3 things in the book that totally surprised me. I don't see how one could have predicted the 2 major deaths for example. Still a very good book though and better than most stuff out there, but I do hope Erikson focuses things a bit better in the next book and works more on the action, set scenes and imagery rather than dialogue/philosophising. I see the point, I see that Erikson is saying some valid things about certain types of societies, heck we see a lot of what he says around us. It just doesn't interest me as much. I'd give my rankings, but I don't think I will til I do a full reread of the series. Pretty sure DHG is still on top though.

[Dolorous Edd]

I'd have to disagree on the plot twists. There were at least 3 things in the book that totally surprised me. I don't see how one could have predicted the 2 major deaths for example.

What surprises and what major deaths are you referring to? (Obviously, I know what one of the deaths is ...)

[Larry.]

It's interesting to see that many of the things that I liked about RG, such as the fleshing-out of the societies and the commentaries implicit upon them, were disliked by quite a few. I thought that this and MT were the best-written of the Malazan novels to date and that there were some interesting character developments. The dialogue as a whole was much stronger than in most of the earlier books and the events made scene based on what happened throughout the novel. The humor was just enough to make the black, tragic scenes all that more tragic in the end. It was a strong book that met not just the needs of advancing the plot threads, but of developing them in such ways that the resolutions felt like they were the "natural" ones for the most part, plus it leaves enough mystery as to make the next three volumes appear to be open-ended and yet also reachable at the same time. I guess I just don't need "wow" scenes to appreciate a novel - this appears to be a "necessary" novel and now things are revealed to be of a much larger scope than ever before without it feeling predictable or too herky-jerky.

It's one of the best of the bunch, but I hate doing "rankings."

[Arakasi]

T&T of course for the deaths. Not sure what I thought for the other, since I'm tired atm.

I really do like the wow scenes, and feel that Erikson writes them really well. So I'm a bit sad that there weren't as many in the book. However I agree with what Wert and Rhaco and you have said Dylan in that this was a very consistent book. It might not have had the scenes I wanted, but it didn't drag for me either. It was consistently of good quality, not like HoC or BH which to me had some exceptional stuff mixed in with some plodding plots.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I agree that writing was smoother than previous books, and dialogue better. I think than Erikson's writing craft really is getting better. There was also relatively less philosophising - as compared tobooks like HoC and MT. I must admit I love Erikson's humor - but humor, porn and horror are supposed to be three things which are one hundred percent subjective. It either works for you or not, period. I don't agree there weren't any plot twists, as well. I certainly didn't expect what will happen when Karsa faces Rhulad, and it seems so obvious in retrospect! Big point for Erikson here. I was also surprised by the resolution of Redmask storyline. Very nice twist on "champion of the downtrodden people" cliche, IMHO. I am divided on Karos Invictad storyline, but it is easy guess that it will prove very popular in my country.

On the negative side I would list lack of wow moments. Sure not all books need them, but they always were one of strongest points of MBotF. I was also rather disappointed by what I must see as facile happy ending. There is not even the slightest doubt who is good and who is bad. There is little "greyness" in this book. Also with title like "The Reaper's Gale" I expected far bigger death toll, especially among the Malazans.

All in all, not the best book in the series, but also not the worst. I would rate it above HoC but below MT, I think.

[Rhaco]

Edd,

While I generally appreciate SE's humor, I do agree that it's getting a little excessive. In RG, that's maybe to be expected, considering the presence of certain characters. Still, coming on the heels of The Lees of Laughter's End, which is pretty much one big comedy routine, it's become somewhat tiresome. That's upsetting because, as I said, I actually like SE's humor.

I'd also agree about the lack of wow scenes, particularly when there seemed so much potential for some good ones near the end, like you said.

The philosophizing complaint, though, I disagree with. Like some others have said, I actually thought there was a little less in RG, and I'm not sure I would've even noticed the amount if I hadn't been actively watching for philosophizing since it's been drilled into my head in recent years on this board as one of SE's biggest faults. By and large, it just works for me, in RG and in the series as a whole.

I'd rank it 4th, I think, after the first three in the series. Maybe tied for 4th with HOC.

Btw, there's a RG spoiler thread here if you want to talk about surprises or deaths or whatever.

Dolorous Edd, I said almost the exact same thing as you and that wasn't appreciated by the extreme fans.

Hm, I don't see where Edd said the Letherii Empire = the US and Rhulad = Bush. That seemed to be what people were disagreeing with you about more than anything.

[Mind Elemental]

I just finished Bonehunters yesterday; does Reaper's Gale shed light on (phrased to avoid spoilers) what Laseen is thinking/planning as of the end of Bonehunters?

[pat5150]

I just finished Bonehunters yesterday; does Reaper's Gale shed light on (phrased to avoid spoilers) what Laseen is thinking/planning as of the end of Bonehunters?

Unfortunately, no. . .

Patrick

[Werthead]

I just finished Bonehunters yesterday; does Reaper's Gale shed light on (phrased to avoid spoilers) what Laseen is thinking/planning as of the end of Bonehunters?

No. This plot point will be revisited in Ian Esslemont's Return of the Crimson Guard, due in 2008.

[Calibandar]

Erikson interview here:

http://www.bridlingtontoday.co.uk/ViewArti...ticleid=2706341

* He confirms Toll the Hounds will feature Daruhjistan and Black Coral as the two main settings.

* He confirms he doesn't care at all about timelines and stuff like that ( dare I say internal consistency? ) because he feels if he paid attention to them he would get bogged down.

He then goes on to say that:

Occasionally at conventions and signings I have ventured the opinion that in Lord of the Rings Frodo should have died. He should have gone down into the magma with the ring. Only then would the notion of true sacrifice have any real meaning -- seen in the grief of his friends. Sam should have come down from the mountain alone.

With which I disagree. Frodo's sacrifice as it was was already enormous, and we are told he could never be healed. In the end his fate is very bittersweet as his only salvation can be to go to Valinor, the Blessed Realm, and be parted from his friends forever.

Other than that, Erikson fails to pick up on Tolkien's point that Frodo's mission was a moral failure. Frodo went very far, but ultimately he failed, and wanted to keep the One Ring for himself, which is really very poignant because Frodo now lives with that failure. I do not see how Frodo dying on that mountain makes for a better ending, and I wonder if this sentiment expressed here by Erikson is in some way tied with my increasing dissatisfaction for how he handles his own story.

He also goes on to state what he thinks are some of his best written characters and interestingly, he lays out what inspired certain races and characters...

Some viewpoint characters are not particularly nice or likeable. I have no trouble with those ones at all.

I work hard at stepping into the skin of every character I write, of seeing things from their eyes, feeling how they would feel. Even the completely helpless characters (like Udinaas and Seren Pedac) serve a purpose.

Curiously, those characters I felt I have been most successful with are the ones many readers despise. The Mhybe in Memories of Ice. Felisin in Deadhouse Gates. Seren Pedac. Karsa Orlong.

A subject that's been touched on in the fan-based site concerns the inspiration I may have had for certain characters.

Imagine my disbelief when someone asserted that the character of Icarium was based on the comic-book Hulk. Apparently, because both have green skin and a tendency towards rage. My jaw dropped. The things people believe!

I have never hesitated in giving the nod to the efforts of other writers living and dead who have inspired me ... but the Hulk!? I suppose it's a generational thing.

The Jaghut (whose blood Icarium shares) emerged from my love of the novels of E. R. Burroughs when I was very young, in this case his John Carter of Mars novels.

I suppose if, in addition to the green skin and tusks, I'd made Jaghut four-armed and egg-laying, this reader would point a finger and shout -- yeah! A four-armed egg-laying Hulk!

So I'll take this opportunity to respond to all those sniffing round for what inspired me.

The T'lan Imass did not derive from Donaldson's Bloodguard. While I loved the Covenant books, the T'lan Imass actually emerged from the very first fantasy novel I ever wrote, when I was about twenty, in the time when I was studying as an archaeologist and thinking often about those species of humans who didn't make it, like the neanderthals.

The T'lan Imass's vow of immortality was a way to tie in ice-ages as works of sorcery, an endless war, and the function of being able to move those undead armies around by unusual means (in our role-playing games). There, I suppose some of the mystery just washed off, huh?

Anomander Rake was a roleplayed character -- do I regret deciding that he had white hair? Do I ever. Rake is not Elric. I was not a reader of Moorcock and the only book I have of his is Mother London. Rake's sword was created by Ian Esslemont -- as for what inspired him, by all means ask him sometime.

Karsa Orlong is not Conan. He's the very opposite of Conan.

Glen Cook was a great inspiration -- for the tone I set out to find in the Malazan series; for the laconic feel of soldiers as characters; for the ambivalence of the world being portrayed.

He also says that while Nimander Golit's role has been small sofar, his role will increase signficantly after RG.

[Maltaran]

The T'lan Imass did not derive from Donaldson's Bloodguard. While I loved the Covenant books, the T'lan Imass actually emerged from the very first fantasy novel I ever wrote, when I was about twenty, in the time when I was studying as an archaeologist and thinking often about those species of humans who didn't make it, like the neanderthals.

Regarding the above quote, I would have thought that the closest thing to the Bloodguard in Malaz is the Crimson Guard, but that's something to ask Esslemont rather than Erikson, I suppose.

[Tes'thesula]

Imagine my disbelief when someone asserted that the character of Icarium was based on the comic-book Hulk. Apparently, because both have green skin and a tendency towards rage. My jaw dropped. The things people believe!

I remember writing a post to this effect on malazanempire.com...although 'asserted' is a bit strong, i just noticed some similarities

[Jerol]

Erikson interview here:

http://www.bridlingtontoday.co.uk/ViewArti...ticleid=2706341

Thank you sir, this is excellent!

[Dolorous Edd]

Hm, I don't see where Edd said the Letherii Empire = the US and Rhulad = Bush. That seemed to be what people were disagreeing with you about more than anything.

I may not have said it, but I was thinking it .... at least Lether = US. Since Erikson basically said as much back when Midnight Tides came out, its not off base.

I guess the philosophsizing bothered me so much more in RG, because it was done by entirely new characters, all of whom seemed, by the end, to have been brought into the books simply to philosophize, given that the plot threads they were involved with seemed, by the end, completely extraneous and manufactured.

[Dolorous Edd]

T&T of course for the deaths. Not sure what I thought for the other, since I'm tired atm.

I really do like the wow scenes, and feel that Erikson writes them really well. So I'm a bit sad that there weren't as many in the book. However I agree with what Wert and Rhaco and you have said Dylan in that this was a very consistent book. It might not have had the scenes I wanted, but it didn't drag for me either. It was consistently of good quality, not like HoC or BH which to me had some exceptional stuff mixed in with some plodding plots.

One of those deaths didn't surprise me at all, mainly because the character was obviously being used as a plot device rather than a character at that point.

[Dolorous Edd]

I don't agree there weren't any plot twists, as well. I certainly didn't expect what will happen when Karsa faces Rhulad, and it seems so obvious in retrospect! Big point for Erikson here.

Perhaps that reason that we disagree is because the resolution of the Karsa-Rhulad thing was obvious to me from the moment I heard that the Tiste Edur were searching for champions.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

C'mon, there are very few people in the world who think the hard core neo con worldview is correct or desirable. I'd even wager that almost none of them read sci-fi/fantasy - take a look at this board demographic for example.

Well, I certainly know a lot of such people. I even suspect that in my country it is the most popular worldview among readers of SF and fantasy. (But they will still love TRG for its ant.police state message).