Can't Stand Erikson

[werewolfv2]

I like Dutch!

[Dutchman]

I like Dutch!

Love right back at ya brother.

Dutch

[Kalbear]

It's not just the complexity - it's the total lack of good storytelling ability. At least so far. An awesome world can only do so much.

DHG was hailed as the really kickass book - enough that I skipped GotM and went for it first on recommendations. And what you get...is a lot of nothing. Seriously, how does the Chain of Dogs relate at all to Felisin's tale except vaguely peripherally? Why bother with the Soletaken/D'iver/Mappo and Icarium plot in Azath when...well, nothing actually happens? What is the end result of Kalam's ending? And how do any of these really relate with each other at all, except in cute little 'yeah, I know this guy!' kind of ways?

I got the book, I understood enough of it to follow it without being horribly confused, but what I don't see is why. Needless complexity without an underlying weave is just useless.

[Space Bandito]

Just becuase something is complicated doesn't mean it is good. Dune kicked ass, but by the assesment of a few critics slipped in quaility after the third book. There is beauty in simplicity and order. Erikson has done some pretty good writing, but it doesn't seem consistant enough in its vision. Martin is able to slow things down at the right times and every sentence seems to have a purpose. With Erikson he seems to wandering and I'm tired of the "it will all make sense" excuse.

[EHK for Darwin]

I'm getting a bit irritated at these suggestions that people who don't like Erickson simply don't get it, aren't smart or sophisticated enough to grasp his complex world. Quite frankly, it has jack shit to do with that. The problem with Erickson is that his world has no internal consistancy, contradicts itself way too much, and is often a convoluted mess. Not in a 'grand and intricately woven' sort of way, but in a 'I can't really explain it, don't have a grasp myself (and I'm writing this shit), so I'll just keep tossing shit at random on the dart board and hope noone notices!'

I like alot of his work, but I do find these aspects incredibly irritating. We are several books in and there's still no explanation for most of his major concepts. There's still no discernable structure to many of the countless histories, races, demigods, and other shit. His side characters are a bit redundant and too often blend together. Its not that its too complex, simply too messy and sloppy.

I think the turning point for me was the load of revisionist history that was tossed into the 'players handbook' (though they claimed it was a novel) known as Memories of Ice. It was a near 180 from the (often first person established) impressions given of the Malazan Empire from Gardens of the Moon. When he tried to paint some GotM villains as actual heros in that book, you didn't say 'Wow, with a different perspective you really could ALMOST become sympathetic to this guy' like many did with Jamie....you instead shook your head saying 'Wow....a damned contortionist couldn't have pulled this much bullshit out of his ass, and he sure as hell didn't have this idea in mind when he wrote the first book'

I have no confidence that Erickson really has a grasp or understanding of his own world. And if he doesn't, how the hell can he actually expect the reader to? Its quite telling that the absolute strongest point of his entire series is also the simplest, least magic driven of them all. And stop with the fucking Deus Ex Machinas!!!!!!

[Arakasi]

Calibander a lot of those questions are just stupid, and could apply to lots of series. How come we don't know how the interior of Winterfell is set up. Oh can you tell me how Melisandre makes shadow babies. How do the others do what they do and so on. Those questions are pretty silly and are basically people wanting to know too much. There are some valid questions dealing with inconsistencies from GotM to later, but most of those questions are just people wanting to know how it all works. It seems what is accepted in fantasy is to give full detail on all magic or leave it completely mysterious. Here Erikson has revealed tidbits and morsels, but never the whole thing at one time. And people want a full disclosure like Jordan's academic description of chanelling. Well to me thank god Erikson doesn't go that route, but sure as hell does he tell more than a lot of other authors.

And your point about stuff being about who is the strongest character is BS, at least from my prior experiences there. There was tons of discussion on many different aspects of the series. Unless things have drastically changed in the last 8-12 months. Considering here we also had tournaments and discussions aplenty on whom the best fighter is, I really don't see much of a difference, other than in Martin we talk more about plots and Erikson more about history.

Kalbear why does a book have to all conform to one theme? Why can't it focus on different characters doing different things? From reading Martin and Jordan you quite often get character 1 doing his own stuff out in the boonies and character 2 who has no interaction with character 1 doing his own stuff to halfway around the world. So why does Felisin's tale have to join with the Chain of Dogs? It seems like you're wanting all the plotlines in a book to work towards similar ends, which seems very strange in a forum based on Martin's work. What is wrong with enjoying the CoD or Icarium and Meppo's voyage for their own good? (and to me much of the point of the path of hands was revealing the character and friendship of those 2), but with what I know within the overall series the soletaken issue is pretty important. As for the underlying weave that really only starts coming out in book 3. Book 4 and 5 build more upon that and you more see who is who in the world. From what I've heard book 6 continues moving things along quite well.

EHK well I'm similarily annoyed by people saying Erikson is crap, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it. The books do have internal consistency, and for those who put the time and effort in they're rewarded. Well at least I was. And the style does appeal to me which helps. I have a pretty good understanding of the histories, races, gods, etc. He certainly has put the information there and you can put out a pretty decent cronology with a little effort, since he doesnt have a ready made timeline like other writers in their books.

As for the revisionist history have you ever thought that *gasp* Tayschreen might be lying? Why does what he say have to be the truth? There is also of course the chance he is telling the truth, but given what we know about Nightchill now, what he did would not be out of the question. Still there is an issue with the order of events in Gotm that contradicts what he says. I'd need to read GotM the US version to see if that got changed or if its still the same. But how did you know he didn't have the idea in mind when he first wrote it. Is it that complex an idea to make a good guy look like a villian early in the story or vice versa? I know from his interviews that he has the guidelines to all ten books laid out. And nothing in his writing so far has shown he is pulling a Martin or Jordan in dragging out the series. So I'm pretty confident he'll finish it in 10. Will it all be understandable or clear? Most will be I think. Not all though, but I don't mind some mysteries.

[Calibandar]

Calibander a lot of those questions are just stupid, and could apply to lots of series

They probably could, but Erikson probably doesn't have a clear or thought-out answer to them. My impression of his books, and in particular the mythology, the magic, the ancient races, the deck of cards, holds/houses, warrens etc is that he sort of makes it up as he goes. There does seem to be some sort of foundation, but it's pretty flat. The rest is filled in as he goes, which in a world this big, with so many ideas, creates inconsistencies and a lack of beliebavility.

It seems as if for Erikson, enough can never be enough. I love worldbuilding like few others I know, but I can't really get into Erikson's because it feels so..........random. Whereas Martin or Tolkien deal in depth, Erikson deals in width. There's lots of everything, but no real depth to them.

Also, very little in his world really stands out. Martin's sense of memorable places and cultures is far more distinct. I struggle to recall five places in Erikson's world that really stand out. Martin has the various Houses in Westeros, worked out in depth. Dorne has a completely different culture. So do the Ironmen. There are Tyroshi, Braavosi, Meereeneese, Yunkai'i, Dothraki, Ghiscari ,the Targaryens and their vivid past. You've got Mountain clans in the Vale, Wildlings in the North, you've got dragons, Direwolves, astounding castles, you've got outlaw brotherhoods, Northern Lords, Crannogmen (a.k.a bog devils), Summer Islanders, you've got Maesters of the Citadel, Faceless Men, the Night's Watch, Red Priests of R'hlorr, Silent Sisters........there is no end to this list and we've had POV's in virtually all of these area's to actually give depth. We've been to the whole of Westeros, north and south, east and west. And there are other sides to explore still, though not so many that you completely lose sight of where things are. And contrary to Erikson, Martin actually lets the reader know where another continent lies.

And yes Arakasi, an awful lot of the discussions on the Malazan board center around "who is the strongest", "who is the most magically powerful". It's because of the D&D-like lay out of Erikson's world and his characters. There are some other topics of debate of course but the above tends to take prevalence. And it's really not hard to figure out why this is so.

As for explanations of magic, it's not the idea of wanting everything to be fully explained, but rather, wanting things to make some serious sense. Erikson's world doesn't lend itself well to arguments, suppositions and conclusions because it all feels like you're moving on quicksand. It's intriguing on a superficial level, but in the end, not really much to go on.

BTW I agree with Kalbear's point about the plotlines in Deadhouse. The sense of these characters being interconnected is missing. What cause are they fighting for, if any? Are they just travelling across Erikson's various deserts? Fiddler, Apsalar etc hook up with Icarium only to to end up in a different place from them again when travelling through the Azath. Kalam is on a separate mission to kill someone, it takes up all the book and then he decides not to do it. Mappo and Icarium just seems to wander ceaselessly. In fact the only storyline which seems to have both a sense of purpose AND a pay-off is the Chain of Dogs. The rest is a boring blurr, including a mindumbing Felisin storyline.

Readers are boggled by Erikson for understandable reasons. How does the Deck work? How do Warrens work or how were they really created? How old are Elder Gods and how do they fit in? What about Mother Dark? What about Tiam? Could the author please, finally, start filling in some more positions in the Houses listed so extensively in the appendix, so that we know what characters fits where? We're five books in and not a quarter has been filled in. What's the point of having these positions (Herald, Mage, Knight etc) if no one fills them in or fits? How many Empires were there? Is there some sort of timeline that shows the age of the ancient races compared to the ascent of Men? Why do there need to be two First Empires, founded by different races, and now we have a new Empire again. How many chainings were there and who was present when? What is the relation between Otataral, Jade giants and the Crippled God? How old are our main characters, in fact, what do they look like? Why are there so many characters talking gibberish that's supposed to be crammed with "subtle hints"? Why no info on some the other continents? What is or happened at Korelli? What's the deal with Assail? Why is "...A" the greatest fighter ever in one book and "...B" the greatest fighterever in the next, as per the same author's voice? I could go on and on and on and on.

As I said, some people enjoy this sense of vagueness, this sense of an "anything goes" universe. Personally, I prefer a more thought out world, one that has depth rather than width.

[Dutchman]

For the record, my post was directed at those who specifcally point to the complexity as being the problem. Of course there are those who simply didn't care for the book for other reasons.

Dutch

[Kalbear]

Kalbear why does a book have to all conform to one theme? Why can't it focus on different characters doing different things? From reading Martin and Jordan you quite often get character 1 doing his own stuff out in the boonies and character 2 who has no interaction with character 1 doing his own stuff to halfway around the world. So why does Felisin's tale have to join with the Chain of Dogs? It seems like you're wanting all the plotlines in a book to work towards similar ends, which seems very strange in a forum based on Martin's work. What is wrong with enjoying the CoD or Icarium and Meppo's voyage for their own good? (and to me much of the point of the path of hands was revealing the character and friendship of those 2), but with what I know within the overall series the soletaken issue is pretty important. As for the underlying weave that really only starts coming out in book 3. Book 4 and 5 build more upon that and you more see who is who in the world. From what I've heard book 6 continues moving things along quite well.

With Martin, while the characters are doing disparate things I always feel like I know why. I know why Arya is in the riverlands, and I know why she's hooked up with the Brotherhood, or why she runs into Roose Bolton, or who Yoren is and why he's in King's Landing and why he'd rescue Arya. I understand why we're focusing on Dany, and she's at least mentioned in other chapters.

What I don't get is how Felisin, the Chain of Dogs, Fiddler et al and Kalam connect except peripherally. I really don't see how Mappo and Icarium connect. To anyone. And my point is that for a reader to have some kind of foundation for the work - especially a work so divisive like this - either you need to have the connection established early (like Martin does) or you need to establish the connection at the end (like a lot of authors do) but do it within one book. From what you're saying, it sounds like these threads haven't been connected in 5000 pages.

That's ridiculous.

Now, they do kind of connect - at least some of 'em do. Felisin is there because of her bitchass sister, and she is able to eventually escape and join up with the rebels and become Sha'ik reborn - the same rebels that are fighting Coltaine. The reason they're fighting Coltaine is because Kalam delivered them the book of the Apocalypse. Okay, there's a tenuous connection...but it doesn't tell me much else, and it's fairly weak. Even in Jordan's world, you can understand the connection between Perrin, Mat and Rand. Here? Not so much.

I'm fine enjoying threads for themselves, but then I have to enjoy that thread - and really, in DHG I only liked Felisin's and Coltaine's tales. The rest were dull, and the endings of them were stillborn.

[Galactus]

Whereas Martin or Tolkien deal in depth, Erikson deals in width. There's lots of everything, but no real depth to them.

I'd just like to say that I don't think Tolkien is especially good at world-building. You never felt like there was any *connection* between the various countries. (mostly because it didn't deal with it) the material base for the various cultures simply seemed to be lacking somehow.

It's because of the D&D-like lay out of Erikson's world and his characters

Here I disagree, not with what you are saying but when you cal it "D&D-like". In order for plot hooks in an RPG to work you have to have some sort of base (what kinds of gems are there, how much are they worth? Who trades with whom?) The reason most RPG worlds are inconsistent is that they are *larger* than worlds in "books", becuase they must (by nature) detail the entire world, not just that which the protagonists is affected by.

MS&T is another series that I feel is really lacking in world-building.

[werewolfv2]

Imp getting bored with this.

I've just waded through a mess of replies such as..

Seriously, how does the Chain of Dogs relate at all to Felisin's tale except vaguely peripherally? Why bother with the Soletaken/D'iver/Mappo and Icarium plot in Azath when

..but it doesn't seem consistant enough in its vision..

..Erickson is that his world has no internal consistancy, contradicts itself way too much

..I think the turning point for me was the load of revisionist history that was tossed into the 'players handbook'

..My impression of his books, and in particular the mythology, the magic, the ancient races, the deck of cards, holds/houses, warrens etc is that he sort of makes it up as he goes.

Whereas Martin or Tolkien deal in depth, Erikson deals in width.

and so on and so on..

Some posters have been right about people just not "getting it". The fact that Eriksons world is so wide and deep seems to cause some readers to balk and refuse to understand what is going on. Some people it seems cant grasp the massive amount of history being dealt with in Eriksons world, and for that they blame Erikson.. Martin has a very cool world and I like it, but compared to Eriksons world Martins is small and doesnt have the vast scope of history.

I can understand people not liking it because its to complex and to deep, or just because people don't like magic or epic stories. If you don't like it because its too complex, then say that, don't blame the author for writing above your reading skills. To blame not liking it on things that clearly you just don't "get" though are right in front of you is lame.

[berencamlost7]

Readers are boggled by Erikson for understandable reasons. How does the Deck work? How do Warrens work or how were they really created? How old are Elder Gods and how do they fit in? What about Mother Dark? What about Tiam? Could the author please, finally, start filling in some more positions in the Houses listed so extensively in the appendix, so that we know what characters fits where? We're five books in and not a quarter has been filled in. What's the point of having these positions (Herald, Mage, Knight etc) if no one fills them in or fits? How many Empires were there? Is there some sort of timeline that shows the age of the ancient races compared to the ascent of Men? Why do there need to be two First Empires, founded by different races, and now we have a new Empire again. How many chainings were there and who was present when? What is the relation between Otataral, Jade giants and the Crippled God? How old are our main characters, in fact, what do they look like? Why are there so many characters talking gibberish that's supposed to be crammed with "subtle hints"? Why no info on some the other continents? What is or happened at Korelli? What's the deal with Assail? Why is "...A" the greatest fighter ever in one book and "...B" the greatest fighterever in the next, as per the same author's voice? I could go on and on and on and on.

Lemme see now. How does the Deck work ? Ask an Adept. You'll need to sit one down for a few chapters, taking up his and the readers valuable time with doing this mind. But seeing as you like info dumps...........ask away, when next you get the chance, and Erikson has the time and page space.

Warrens, apparently, were constructed by Krul. But as to whether that was ALL the warrens, or just the human ones as aspects of the Elder ones, which might concievably already have been in existence...... erm ...... who knows ? But perhaps K'rul just tidied things up a bit eh ?

How old are the Elder Gods ? Good question. But as we seem to have some problem with Fiddler's age, then you really cannot expect Erikson to get a grip on that

Mother Dark ? Tiam ? I dunno about MD. Is/Was she real ? Or just a nebulous Mother of the Tiste community, is anyone's guess. After all Odin was the All Fatherer of the Norse Race, but thats not to say he existed at all. Taim otoh was I reckon a bloody big dragon whose blood the Tiste partook of in some way. It's an old trope "the drinking of the dragon's blood" to achieve wisdom, magic, long life, free entry to Odeon cinemas worldwide. That sort of thing. Not anything to get all het up about really.

The filling in of positions. Why should they be filled ? There are young houses, old houses, all sorts of houses. And nowhere have I read it that ALL these positions must be filled. What these positions mean is that there is a possibility that someone can take onboard that role. With the role comes Power. But power has a price and responsibility. Not taken lightly then. And not one for waking up one day and saying "This week I shall mainly be Obelisk".

Timelines etc etc Empires etc etc. Empires come and go. All is transitory. Isn't that one of Erikson's POVs ? So of course there will be many Empires, just like there has been on our world. Timelines ? I guess we'll get them in the encyclopedia. BTW - I note a distinct lack of timelines in ASOIAF, rather as in MBOF, just loads of disparate dates and such spread over many books, so I do not really see your point there Cali.

Lots of chainings. Each one less likely to succeed than the previous. I believe economists call it the Law of Diminishing Returns. And as such I see no problem. The number might as well be 34. In fact thats what we should go for. 34.

Crippled Jade Gigantic Boot wearing Fairies. Beats me. When we know what The Others are up to, what their history is, etc etc, I dare say we'll get similar gen from Erikson. IOW - not ALL is gonna be revealed for sometime yet, and you'll just have to wait.

Assail-Korelri - Future books will revealsuch stuff

Who's the Daddy ? Well that well change won't it ? It's all relative, and not everyone knows of ALL the baddasses do they ? So they can only base their Biggest Baddass on what THEY know.

Hope this helps you, cus its done jackshit for me

[werewolfv2]

just to toss another gem out

(not an exact quote)

"how many sleeping old women are there?"

[lumer]

I'm going to repost a post I made in a previous Erickson thread:

Anyway, I totally agree with cteresa here. It's not that I don't like books who are a bit puzzled and unexplained at the begining - for example, I really like Tim Powers, whose main feature in his books is leaving the reader rather clueless as to what's REALLY going on, and only slowly revealing his cards.

But GotM is taking it too far, IMO. there was just no reward for me as a reader, nothing that helped me understand what was going on. And I was not going to read another book just to have a clue.

But to each his own, as they say...

[Kalbear]

Okay, werewolfv2, how DOES the Icarium/Mappo plot relate at all to the rest of the story in DHG? What does the Soletaken quest to find the gate to become Ascendant have anything to do with the Chain of Dogs, or the Sha'ik reborn, or Kalam's quest to kill the Empress? Why does delivering Icarium to the Gods make a whit of difference to anything?

Because clearly, I'm just confused and it's beyond my reading comprehension skills.

[Doran Doran]

I can understand people not liking it because its to complex and to deep

Amigo, I hate to break it to you, but Erikson is about as complex and deep as my signature.

[werewolfv2]

Okay, werewolfv2, how DOES the Icarium/Mappo plot relate at all to the rest of the story in DHG? What does the Soletaken quest to find the gate to become Ascendant have anything to do with the Chain of Dogs, or the Sha'ik reborn, or Kalam's quest to kill the Empress? Why does delivering Icarium to the Gods make a whit of difference to anything?

Because clearly, I'm just confused and it's beyond my reading comprehension skills.

Its all part of the ongoing story. You don't want Martin telling you everything in 1 or 2 books do you? Then why do you want Erikson to tell you everything right of the bat?

I can see your complaint as having some basis if Deadhouse Gates was the last book in a series with a standard structure, but DG is only the 2nd book in a series with a scope that is much more vast than most any other quality series that I can think of off hand.

It goes to what I (and others) have said concerning how much how deep and how massive the world Erikson has created is. History goes back just few years (100,000+/-) in Erikons world.

Amigo, I hate to break it to you, but Erikson is about as complex and deep as my signature.

really? I dont see anything much dealing with history in regards to your sig unless your talking about 80's pop bands that tried to make a comeback since 2000.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

But alot of history does not necessarily equate to a good story, and I think that is the part of the problem that some of the Erikson objectors have. Having 100,000+ years of history, for all the depth that brings, is pretty meaningless if the story itself is told poorly. You would do better just reading a history book or a D&D player's manual than reading what is supposed to be a novel.

[werewolfv2]

But alot of history does not necessarily equate to a good story, and I think that is the part of the problem that some of the Erikson objectors have. Having 100,000+ years of history, for all the depth that brings, is pretty meaningless if the story itself is told poorly. You would do better just reading a history book or a D&D player's manual than reading what is supposed to be a novel.

See, you at least have a valid view.

Some people don't like Tolkiens writing and some don't like the way Martin has told his story. Personally I think Eriksons style and story telling ability is pretty good and his re-read factor is very very good. Martin writes better but many others (such as Jordan/Goodkind and a bunch of other best selling Fantasy authors) do not.

[Kalbear]

I don't want him to tell me about everything, no. What I DO want is for him to give me some reason to actually follow the tale. As it stands, I can skip over all of it without losing a beat.

So, does Mappo and Icarium's tale get expanded in any of the other books? Can you please explain to me where in the other books it gets helped along? Do you ever see, once how it related at all to any of the other storylines?

It might all have some grand design, but if you have to go through 5 books to get to it without that design being revealed in the least, well, that's a problem in storytelling quality.