Jump to content

Can't Stand Erikson


SergioCQH

Recommended Posts

Mappo and Icarium are very important to the story as a whole - but in only gets clear in The Bonehunters. Sorry, but this is the way it is. And no, there wasn't any way to explain it in DG without massively spoiling the next volumes. Besides, even if they weren't important, what would be wrong with that? If only things relevant to the main plot existed in the book this size, it would look positively bizarre. It is basic element of good worldbuilding, IMHO - to show that the world is bigger that the story and there are also other stories goig on in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.

So 1/4 of the book is dedicated to a plotline that does not get resolved until 4 whole BOOKS later. And which, apparently, you do not know anything about until that book - because if you did know, you'd be able to say, right?

Got it.

That doesn't sound like poor structure to me at all.

If the book was showing things around the world, I'd buy it - but it's mostly just the quest of mappo and Icarium. They barely interact with anyone else. It vaguely illustrates the world of the Soletaken and the D'ivers, but not by a lot. This isn't like an Arya chapter where we're seeing the riverlands from the commoner perspective; for starters, we have no idea why we should care about these two (unlike Arya) and we don't actually get to see much of the world through their eyes; point of fact, Mappo and Icarium are the most myopic of the plot threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The site seems to be down now, but from what I recall reading in the MT forums, about 1/15 or so questions were about who is stronger. Now yeah thats more than Martin, but is that a shock with the amount of powerful characters in that world? It's not like we didn't have who would win Sandor or Gregor here, its just not as interesting as Rake vs Karsa.

I disagree with your points on depth. Really how deep is a lot of stuff in Martin's world? There is nothing that has as much laid out history as the T'lan Imass in Erikson's world. Or the depth of the Tiste races. Sure a lot of it is sparse, but there is plenty of detail for many of the races. It also has been getting filled in more and more as the series progressed. If we know this much after 5 books, think what we'll know after 10. He doesn't do infodumps and likes dribelling things out to the reader, which works fine with me.

As for the author, I have more faith in him then you do apparently. I don't want all those questions answered in info dumps. There is plenty of information already anyway on many of those questions. Basically my point is that I don't share your view at all for your entire post. I flat out disagree. Like why does how the deck work really make the series incomprehensible? Why does not fully knowing everything about a back character like Tiam really spoil people's understanding of a book. I completely disagree that these unanswered questions ruin the series, anymore than not knowing how Thoros does what he do or how real the gods are in Martin's world. (they're definately there, but they're not too active it seems). Other points there are personal preferences. How do characters look like for one. Some are very well drawn, but I agree most aren't. Go read the Silmarillion or the Illiad. You won't find a lot of descriptions of many characters there. Basically my view of Malazan has always been an epic saga that draws from those and is about tragedy and scope and not about the little details. Do I really know anything about Maedhros other than he has a silver hand and is tall with dark hair? No and I don't care.

Kalbear: spoilers here in black.

SPOILER: black
Fiddler and Sorry and Crokus are looking for Sorry's dad. This was established in book 1 which you skipped. Her dad is with Iskaral, so that ties them in to the path of hands. By the end of the book you very clearly see how Felisin and the Chain of Dogs are tied. Felisin becomes leader of the rebellion fighting against the Malazans. So that is tied up in the very book itself. Chain of Dogs and Kalam connect because both are made up of Malazan soldiers who in their own way are fighting the whirlwind. Fiddler ends up joining the Malazan army again at the end of the book too. The Whirlwind itself is the main thing that ties almost everything together. It ties together the Chain of Dogs and Felesin threads. True the most random part of the book is the Soletaken stuff with the Path of Hands and Mappo and Icarium. However of all the storylines there, it is the most minor. 3/4 of the book is about the Whirlwind and Seven Cities vs the Malazans. Felesins stuff, the Chain of Dogs and Kalam's story are all in there. Mappo and Icarium's history though is important for other reasons that do get explained well before book 6 though. What Icarium has done in the past is very important for things in book 4 and 5. His breaking of the warren is described in book 2 and is very important to the series. The Tiste Edur who come up in 4 and 5 are very much affected by this. The power that Kalanved and Dancer hold are tied into this too, since it is Icarium's breaking of the warren which has allowed them to seize power. So yeah perhaps Icarium's role with the soletaken is not something that has been explained fully, but what he has done in the scheme of the whole world is hugely important and has been since book 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read some classics of Russian literature. I've read Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury. I've read everything from Shakespeare to Frank Herbert, Moby Dick to Sin City. I think I know complex and interwoven plotlines. There is a difference between complex and bloated. Erikson's world is quite intriguing, but in order for it to have depth it must have a direction and a purpose not simply a collection of cities and souless characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felisin is probably the best of the lot, at least in DHG. Heboric is decent but maddeningly inconsistent, and Erikson's prose jumps around from POV to POV on the same page, so it's hard to get a feel as to who is thinking what and why.

One way this is made more soulless is that everything is told in the reporter sense of the word. The POV characters are generally not. We get information relayed to us by either conversations or by seeing the events, but the internal dialogue is lacking - or it is so obfuscated that it makes no difference.

Arakasi, I know (and mentioned) most of that upthread. I know how Felisin connects to the whirlwind and the Chain, though I don't see why the tale is relevant. The Chain, so far, appears to be a really cool but otherwise pointless waste of time. Felisin's tale is far more intriguing. But the Jhag plot and Kalam's plot...ugh. How lame. I'm especailly pissed off about Kalam, who did all of these silly things just to...not do anything. I understood Apsalar's quest, and I understood Felisin's desperate hunt for survival. But Kalam...okay, so he's a badass. Is that basically it?

Yes, they all are vaguely related - but why are we telling these stories? Why do we need to know about Kalam, when nothing actually happens? Why do we need to know about Icarium now, when it isn't relevant until the 6th book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I sald Kalbear, what Icarium has does in his life is hugely revelent, even before book 6. It is relevent bigtime in the scope of the series. Not sure why BoG said Icarium is not important to book 6, since stuff that Icarium has done (and has shown to do in book 2) are very revelent to what happens in books 3-5. Heck its even revelent to other stuff in DG, although a lot of this isn't explained fully to book 4. Maybe he meant to say the Soletaken stuff isn't revelent to 6? But Icarium himself is.

As for Kalam, I didn't think that nothing happened. We saw a lot of the world through his eyes, got a look at the rebellion. Had him help out the Chain through his discussions with the captain who ended up figuring out who Jhistal is because of Kalam's information. Just because he didn't kill the Empress his entire story is invalidated? I don't agree with that. Not to mention he figured out during their talk that she wasn't there anyway, so killing her was pointless at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Why tell it in DHG?

How does it make DHG any better? How does Icarium and Mappo's quest help the story of DHG at all?

Or are you saying that it's basically not going to be knowable until the end, and then it'll be great? In which case, how do you know that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd need to read GotM the US version to see if that got changed or if its still the same.

I haven't reread the whole Siege of Pale scene yet, let alone the whole book, but I did flip through to a few parts I thought might've been changed/corrected. Nightchill and A'Karonys die in the same order in the US GOTM. The only change I found in my brief search was Orfantal's gender.

How does Icarium and Mappo's quest help the story of DHG at all?

Because it's awesome and it made DG even more awesome, is my answer. :P I really don't understand where you're coming from here, kalbear. There are various storylines running through the series. Sometimes one or more intersect in a book, sometimes they run roughly parallel to one another, sometimes they won't appear in a book, etc. I imagine most will come together to some degree late in the series. In general, how is this different than, say, ASOIAF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.

So 1/4 of the book is dedicated to a plotline that does not get resolved until 4 whole BOOKS later. And which, apparently, you do not know anything about until that book - because if you did know, you'd be able to say, right?

they show up in other books also.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait - how are totally unrelated storylines different from ASOIAF? Are you actually serious about that?

Okay, the beginning of ASOIAF - we have the Starks. We also have Tyrion, who is something of an enemy of the Starks. The only POV we have that isn't directly related is Dany, and her relation (and interaction with the other characters) is made very clear from early on. We see how she interacts with Varys and that plot, we see how the KL stuff deals with Dany and what that makes Ned want or not want to do. Now, what's interesting about ASOAIF is that the people start united and then diverge. But we understand their point in the book. Furthermore, within one book we understand WHY they were included. Theon and Davos must be in ACOK, because Theon's tale is the tale of Winterfell, and Davos gives us insight into Stannis' side that we would not otherwise have - and he's clearly important in ACOK. Sam and Jaime are a bit less relevant, possibly, but telling Jaime's tale gives us another insight into the Red Wedding, and Sam's tale gives us more of an inkling of the battle against the Others, AND interacts with Bran.

Erikson appears to be taking the idea of having a lot of disparate storylines that are separated entirely, and slowly bringing them together. That can work, especially if the payoff is great, but at the same time it's hard to see why it's relevant. It might be interesting or important in that context, but if it doesn't share any insight into the rest of the book, it's basically its own standalone story.

Which is, IMO, fairly weak writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, (correct me if I'm wrong), BoG is one of the lucky ones who's actually read TBH, if I remember the discussions on Malazanempire correctly?

I'd say the biggest problem with MBF compared to ASoIF is that ASoIF is one long narrative from start to finish. MBF leaps around a lot but the novels are being marketed much more as individual, stand-alone books with some intersecting subplots (check out Tor's website where it says as much). Thus if a storyline is in a MBF novel and isn't resolved inside that novel, than questioning its purpose is a valid thing to do. I don't know how it's done elsewhere, but the UK editions of the MBF books aren't even numbered on the covers, apparently confirming the idea that you can read the books out-of-order and it won't hurt too much (although House of Chains IMO won't make much sense unless you read Deadhouse Gates first).

Reading Midnight Tides earlier in the series could be an interesting idea. It's self-contained (so far) and it does come straight out and explain what the Warrens are, how many continents there are, where the Tiste Edur came from in the other books etc.

As for MBF being a D&D manual: well, yes, that's because it's very much spun off from a roleplaying campaign started by Erikson and Esslemont in 1982. That doesn't make it a bad series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Perhaps that's the problem I'm seeing, werthead. I had thought that each book should be enjoyed on its own merits as well as being part of the whole, but a lot of DHG feels like setup after setup - with the exception of the Chain of Dogs. And if it's meant to be a standalone, it fails really miserably. Furthermore, as a reader I have no reason to connect to a lot of the storylines, and that is also a failure as a writer.

Now, if it's meant to only be enjoyed as one giant series, that's another thing - but that's not what most everyone here is arguing, with the possibly exception of BoG, who has actually read the novel that makes things make sense, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if it's meant to only be enjoyed as one giant series, that's another thing - but that's not what most everyone here is arguing, with the possibly exception of BoG, who has actually read the novel that makes things make sense, apparently.

No, that's exactly what the fans of the series are arguing. Malazan is not just one book. It seems that's what we're always arguing in these retarded Erikson Sucks threads.

I knew it was a bad idea to read this thread. I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, okay. For me, it's not enough of a payoff, especially if it (still) hasn't paid off yet.

I don't think he sucks, but I'm struggling to see why folks love him so much and he's lauded as such a great author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think people also forget that Malazan is a world created by comittee, not just Erikson himself. Okay, a comittee of two people (the other one is Ian Cameron 'I Dislike Martin Even Though I Clearly Haven't Read His Books' Esslemont), but still that may contribute to the discrepencies, contradictions and plain confusion of the series in parts.

As I have said before, Erikson is an author I enjoy greatly and have even been moved to say he's the second-best author in the contemporary epic fantasy field after Martin, but all those people who label him the greatest and most original fantasy author ever, or even say he is better and more inventive than Tolkien or Wolfe or Vance, are going overboard ever so slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just do, and its frustrating having to read threads of people ripping him and basically ripping on us for thinking he is a great author. Thing is its a subjective thing. Why do people love A but hate B? Well because it appeals to them for some reason. Why do I like 80s rock but not most modern music? Personal preference. In some ways I can explain things (I love the tragedy, epic scope and scale and power of Erikson's work enough that I don't mind things like too much philosophizing and lots of similar background characters) but in some I can't (why I like 80s rock).

As for saying he is the best ever, there is absolutley nothing wrong with saying that. If thats your opinion then so be it. I don't see why people have to defend their opinions. Personally I find him much better than Wolfe (whose style hasn't worked for me at all), just slightly better than Martin and more enjoyable than Tolkien. I do agree Tolkien is a better author. The amount of skill in his work is amazing, but then again I'm a person who much prefers his backstory (Silmarillion, Lost Tales, Unfinished Tales) then I do LotR.

Edit: I would say there are better writers than Erikson. Martin and Kay are two that are certainly more technically skilled. But in comparing their works you have to look at ideas too. Kay fails there for me because he has no originality. Martin's world is rather mundane in lots of ways. So Erikson's world building and history wins it for me over Martin's better characterization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh sure, but since people here won't stop insulting us for thinking Erikson is good, I don't see how that is going to stop. I agree the books take effort to digest everything about it, but for me it's rewarded in how good it is to reread, while to me Martin sucks for rereads. I don't see that its a question of intelligence. Everyone here is smart enough. I think it is a matter of effort. For me it was effortless because I loved the series from the start. But I've read too many accounts of people who disliked it at the start but loved it later to discount that idea. It seems some people have put effort into the series and got rewarded. Erikson won't deliver things on a silver platter. He won't infodump and tell you whats all happening. You have to theorize and work things out on your own or with other fans. To me that is a lot of fun and part of my enjoyment in being an Erikson fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.

So it sounds like for the most part people aren't contesting the bad writing part of it. Some of us can't get over the poor plotting and writing, and some of us seem to like it in spite of these things. All agree it's a cool world.

So, what should I be looking for, then? Would it be a good idea to read MT next, get some background, and then go for MoI and HoC? (I'm presuming that skilling GotM is still a really decent idea all told).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...