Bloat

[Gormenghast]

I think the latest Bakker interview frames perfectly the "bloat" problem:

points where I wallow in this or that perspective for the sake of exploring this or that nuance of character–nuances, which, frankly, strike all but the most careful readers as bald repetition.

It's the careful reader that notices the merit and that recognizes purpose. The rest glide over.

The situation is reversed. One finds bloat where he's unable to go.

For Erikson it's a bit more. Much of what people bemoan as bloat is actually the thematic heart of his writing on the human condition.

I can only comment the first five books but in these cases the plot moves FAR more when nothing happens than during the action scenes. Action scenes are just about watching the marbles fall (or skyrocket).

Actually I could make an inverse complaint: Erikson's travelogue seem an unnatural jumping from a plot point to another. No matter how barren and deserted or wide the landscape, characters continually stumble into major players. Take Karsa's journeys in HoC. He can't move a step without ending up in a major plot revelation. Or take Heboric, Baudin and Felisin "travelogue" in DG. Every scene is an apex of plot movement. One leading right into the next: the Jade statue, the Silanda, the first empire. Take Lostara and Pearl travels in HoC, the discovery of the Otataral dragon. Take the build-up to Capustan's siege, with major revelations about Barghast, Imass, Elder Gods and everything else. Take Paran's journey south in GotM, ending up in Rake's sword, Hairlock destroyed, Toc sent in a warren, Tattersail gone. Take the travel to the North of the Sengar brothers in MT.

Every time there's travel of some form in the Malazan series there are also countless crucial revelations. If I have to criticize this then I would complain it's just not natural. Too artificially driven to make a point and be relevant.

If you add the fact that there are no slices of life or normal life description and that everyone is Major Player, then the problem is that it is too DENSE.

[Gormenghast]

Or I could be full of shit. KCF and I have been having some chats about this from time to time as to what Erikson may or may not have been doing. I did a blogposton it as part of a review of Jemisin's Hundred Thousand Kingdoms and KCF did one when he finished the Malazan series.

About that, I also entered this kind of post-modernism debate but I also have a superficial knowledge of what's considered post-modern even in "standard" literature.

So I'd really like to know if those thoughts are framed correctly or are completely off-track. Can anyone enlighten us?

Summarizing the way I frame it:

- Modern = exterior landscape

- Post-modern = interior landscape

[Adept Havelock]

I think the latest Bakker interview frames perfectly the "bloat" problem:

It's the careful reader that notices the merit and that recognizes purpose. The rest glide over.

The situation is reversed. One finds bloat where he's unable to go.

I can only comment the first five books but in these cases the plot moves FAR more when nothing happens than during the action scenes. Action scenes are just about watching the marbles fall (or skyrocket).

Actually I could make an inverse complaint: Erikson's travelogue seem an unnatural jumping from a plot point to another. No matter how barren and deserted or wide the landscape, characters continually stumble into major players. Take Karsa's journeys in HoC. He can't move a step without ending up in a major plot revelation. Or take Heboric, Baudin and Felisin "travelogue" in DG. Every scene is an apex of plot movement. One leading right into the next: the Jade statue, the Silanda, the first empire. Take Lostara and Pearl travels in HoC, the discovery of the Otataral dragon. Take the build-up to Capustan's siege, with major revelations about Barghast, Imass, Elder Gods and everything else. Take Paran's journey south in GotM, ending up in Rake's sword, Hairlock destroyed, Toc sent in a warren, Tattersail gone. Take the travel to the North of the Sengar brothers in MT.

Every time there's travel of some form in the Malazan series there are also countless crucial revelations. If I have to criticize this then I would complain it's just not natural. Too artificially driven to make a point and be relevant.

If you add the fact that there are no slices of life or normal life description and that everyone is Major Player, then the problem is that it is too DENSE.

But one of the major themes of Erikson's world is power attracts power. Any Ascendent, God or general powerful being will naturally attract any other force in the area. You could complain that thats a very Deux Ex Machina world but it is clear right from the first novel that this is what happens.

On topic the worst for bloat in my opinion is still Jordan. Books 7-10 of the wheel of time could easily have been just one novel, and not even that thick a novel either.

[Underfoot]

If I like the book/series, I don't mind some bloat, but at some point you get lost in the details and can't remember anything about the plot. Take Malazan, for instance. I started reading that series when only up to book 7 had been published, read those books in probably a month or 3, but now I can't really remember anything that happened after the second book. This is also the case with WoT, but my memory stops after book 1.

[Curethan]

I don't think so, certainly not compared to the situation in the 1990s. Recently we've seen a move more towards slimmer volumes (probably to combat rising paper costs) with authors like Daniel Abraham, Stephen Deas, Col Buchanan, Paul Kearney and so on producing 'average'-sized novels of 300-400 pages.

Cheers, I'll check some of these out - really enjoyed Abraham's quartet, but his new stuff looks to be suspiciously open ended...

[Curethan]

I think the latest Bakker interview frames perfectly the "bloat" problem:

It's the careful reader that notices the merit and that recognizes purpose. The rest glide over.

The situation is reversed. One finds bloat where he's unable to go.

Yeh, tru dat.

My brain just rebelled against the difficulty of tracking Erikson's characters and plots versus the not-reward when it seems superfluous.

I guess it makes the reader somewhat unconciously angry to feel unable to appreciate something?

eta. Certainly, I found WLW the least enjoyable of Bakker's series so far because it seems to lack the new things that the thematic arc of the first story brought. Even as a fan boy, elements were getting repetitive without offering reward for the effort. It felt bloated.

[Little Valkyrie]

Yeh, tru dat.

My brain just rebelled against the difficulty of tracking Erikson's characters and plots versus the not-reward when it seems superfluous.

I guess it makes the reader somewhat unconciously angry to feel unable to appreciate something?

I read the first Erikson Malazan book all the way through and got about 1/3 to 1/2 through the second when I realized that he wasn't really interested in structuring his books like, well, most novels, with hints dropped in the first book to be picked up somewhere soon, and resolutions...and I decided that yeah, if I'm going to put this much effort into something, I'm going to actually make it through that copy of The Death of Virgil that I inherited in my library carrel. I have a certain respect for the scope of his imagination and the potential rewards for the attentive reader willing to turn a corkboard into a map of relationships, but it's not what I'm looking for out of this genre. Even though I do enjoy epic fantasy for the puzzle-solving aspect.

[jdiddyesquire]

About that, I also entered this kind of post-modernism debate but I also have a superficial knowledge of what's considered post-modern even in "standard" literature.

So I'd really like to know if those thoughts are framed correctly or are completely off-track. Can anyone enlighten us?

Summarizing the way I frame it:

- Modern = exterior landscape

- Post-modern = interior landscape

I really want to get into this... but I have to run to a mark-up. Check back in a bit.

[jdiddyesquire]

About that, I also entered this kind of post-modernism debate but I also have a superficial knowledge of what's considered post-modern even in "standard" literature.

So I'd really like to know if those thoughts are framed correctly or are completely off-track. Can anyone enlighten us?

Summarizing the way I frame it:

- Modern = exterior landscape

- Post-modern = interior landscape

Exhaustive quoting in your post. That took some time to compile and it's very well put together. You go into pretty great detail about post-modernism as a philosophical movement, which I think is different than a literary one. They're connected, but only looking at philosophy removes the narrative and style component that makes it post-modern in a literary sense.

I'm also curious about what you consider MODERN in the genre. For something to be post-modern it has to be referencing something, no? And is post-modern in FANTASY different post-modern in the mainstream? I think in my post I tried to differentiate between the two (not necessarily successfully).

[jdiddyesquire]

- Modern = exterior landscape

- Post-modern = interior landscape

Also, I think this dichotomy is accurate presuming we're operating under the same understanding of your terminology.

Exterior meaning looking at ideas in the world.

Interior meaning looking at whether we're looking at the right ideas in the first place.

I'm oversimplifying of course, but it's so hard to discuss this stuff in short bursts without doing so.

The point is entirely symbolic, the meaning universal. And in general the Fantasy genre "enables", if you want, to deal directly with myth. Myth seen from the perspective of human creation of meaning and morality. The world reduced to the human level. The war with the environment.

I do think this is the same thought I had which is to say the the fantasy genre allows us to access things in a way that is unique in literature. It sort of removes the wall between our imagination/soul (p.s. - I think using the word soul makes anyone sound like a hipster jerk in discussing literature) and reality.

[Werthead]

On topic the worst for bloat in my opinion is still Jordan. Books 7-10 of the wheel of time could easily have been just one novel, and not even that thick a novel either.

8-10 could have been one novel (or more accurately 8-9 could have been one and 10-11 another), but I think 7 gets a raw deal. Quite a lot happens in it (far more than in 6, which most people don't seem to have a problem with) in multiple storylines involving multiple characters. I'm not sure why it always seems to get lumped in with the 'bad phase' of the series. 8-10 are characterised by storylines that go nowhere (Rand's futile attack on the Seanchan is interesting and sets some things up for later, but it could have been handled rather more concisely), minor strands strung out to ridiculous lengths (the FaileFail storyline) and self-contained filler (like Far Madding). 7 doesn't really have that same issue.

[Grack21]

8-10 could have been one novel (or more accurately 8-9 could have been one and 10-11 another), but I think 7 gets a raw deal. Quite a lot happens in it (far more than in 6, which most people don't seem to have a problem with) in multiple storylines involving multiple characters. I'm not sure why it always seems to get lumped in with the 'bad phase' of the series. 8-10 are characterised by storylines that go nowhere (Rand's futile attack on the Seanchan is interesting and sets some things up for later, but it could have been handled rather more concisely), minor strands strung out to ridiculous lengths (the FaileFail storyline) and self-contained filler (like Far Madding). 7 doesn't really have that same issue.

6 is actually my least favorite, and yes that includes 10. And yeah 6-10 could have been at most 2 books.

[AUyushu]

8-10 could have been one novel (or more accurately 8-9 could have been one and 10-11 another), but I think 7 gets a raw deal. Quite a lot happens in it (far more than in 6, which most people don't seem to have a problem with) in multiple storylines involving multiple characters. I'm not sure why it always seems to get lumped in with the 'bad phase' of the series.

Yeah, I've never understood book 7 being grouped up with the rest. It's definitely were the bloat/slowdown started occurring (particularly with the redundant battle from the Aiel point of view at the beginning), but it's an entertaining book that doesn't deserve to be lumped with the filler junk that were books 8-11.

I think a large issue with bloat for me is whether or not the bloat is entertaining. For me everything written in a book doesn't have to move the plot along to be worthwhile. Erikson is a guy with a fair bit of bloat, but much of it wound up being relevant to the plot down the road, and many parts were entertaining as well. The Bauchelain and Broach parts of book 3 would be a good example of bloat, but they were entertaining none the less. Now a few of his later books in the series had some serous bloat issues, and several plot oriented issues should have been cut down by over half (like the Myhbe storyline in MOI).

There is just a huge difference to me between good bloat and say the thousand plus pages of Perrin/Faile storyline bloat in books 8-11 of WOT. To me having not enough bloat can be a little of a detriment as well. Glen Cook's early black company novels were extremely tight with very little bloat, and there are many points in the first book I would have enjoyed a few more eye witness accounts of some battles and seeing certain taken in action, but that would have overall been bloat. Cook actually expands things much more in that regard with his later books, and I enjoyed that much more in the final three books of the series (final so far I guess).

[Gormenghast]

and several plot oriented issues should have been cut down by over half (like the Myhbe storyline in MOI).

Probably the best example ever of: I don't like it = bloat.

I'm re-reading now. The Mhybe has 2 pages every hundred. Even if you put them together they would be 30-40 pages on a book that has 1200. And then everything that happens in those pages is CRUCIAL to the plot. It has Kruppe and K'rul playing with dreams, it has the fate of the T'lan, it has the description of the Rhivi spirits that leads to more reveals, it introduces the whole deal of the Barghast's origin and the foundation of Darujhistan, it brings on the thematic significance of Felisin, it introduces the shift in behavior of K'rul Vs the other gods, something that is like the fundamental pillar of the whole idea of the series. And so on. Not only the Mhybe scenes are an handful, but they are PACKED with reveals and fundamental stuff.

On Bauchelain and Korbal Broach I agree. They are less relevant to the plot and are mostly used as perspective and reflection about other aspects and characters. They still have their place, but it's not strictly plot-related.

[Shryke]

8-10 could have been one novel (or more accurately 8-9 could have been one and 10-11 another), but I think 7 gets a raw deal. Quite a lot happens in it (far more than in 6, which most people don't seem to have a problem with) in multiple storylines involving multiple characters. I'm not sure why it always seems to get lumped in with the 'bad phase' of the series. 8-10 are characterised by storylines that go nowhere (Rand's futile attack on the Seanchan is interesting and sets some things up for later, but it could have been handled rather more concisely), minor strands strung out to ridiculous lengths (the FaileFail storyline) and self-contained filler (like Far Madding). 7 doesn't really have that same issue.

How? Rand's Seanchan adventures in PoD are extremely lean. It's like barely 6 chapters or the like. The whole thing is actually very good work on that part. Which is what I'd say about most of 8 actually. It's not bloated, it's just really, really short. (Well, the beginning with the Bowl of Winds is bloated, but the beginning of every WOT book is bloated)

7 is actually more bloated, I'd say, then 8 or 9. Though if you consider any part of, say, Perrin or Elayne's storyline bloat, then yeah, 9 is bloated.

Yeah, I've never understood book 7 being grouped up with the rest. It's definitely were the bloat/slowdown started occurring (particularly with the redundant battle from the Aiel point of view at the beginning), but it's an entertaining book that doesn't deserve to be lumped with the filler junk that were books 8-11.

This is in every WOT book. Seriously. I remember noticing this on my last reread. It's in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc, etc. It's like RJ started writing really slow and then once he'd wrapped up the first bunch of chapters and that parts little arc he was suddenly like "Shit, gotta get moving".

[Contrarius]

I think part of the "argument" here is about whether people insist on lots of plot progression, or not. Personally, I can tolerate a plot that isn't in a hurry to get anywhere -- in fact, I don't mind it at all as long as the text is interesting. There may be character development, there may be worldbuilding descriptions, whatever -- as long as it's engrossing, I tend to not care much about whether the plot is plunging ahead or only ambling.

OTOH, egregious bloat can be quite annoying. For instance, I just finished Hobb's Assassin trilogy for the first time. The first book is 17 hours long (I listen rather than read), while the last book is **37** hours. Nearly every chapter includes an expositional segment at the beginning, mostly of stuff that we already know (yes, I realize that it shows Fitz writing and re-writing "history", but it's very excessive). That's bloat for ya.

In contrast, this afternoon I just started a re-listen of Curse of Chalion. I've listened to most of the Vorkosigan books twice or more times, but I haven't re-done Bujold's fantasy in years. And once again I'm struck by how efficient her prose is. She packs a lot of information into every sentence -- she doesn't waste a lot of space. And that shows a lot of care and work and editing. I suspect that's what is missing in a lot of these "bloated" books. Too much scribbling, not enough editing!

[Gormenghast]

If everything that is not "plot progression" = bloat, then Joyce's Ulysses is all bloat.

[jdiddyesquire]

If everything that is not "plot progression" = bloat, then Joyce's Ulysses is all bloat.

See Melville, Herman too if you ask me and just about every author from that era while you're at it.

[AUyushu]

Probably the best example ever of: I don't like it = bloat.

I'm re-reading now. The Mhybe has 2 pages every hundred. Even if you put them together they would be 30-40 pages on a book that has 1200. And then everything that happens in those pages is CRUCIAL to the plot.

Oh, I agree that Mhybe is important to the plot, just that you don't need quite as much of the oh she's in agony whiny stretches to get that across (most of the stuff you are mentioning occurs in the last 5-6 pages of her little arc, and that part of her arc is interesting and not annoying). I've read MOI three times, and pretty much just skimmed through most of her sections on reread. The same is true of the Felsin emo chapters in the previous books, though those chapters are full of key plot points around the edges. But anyway, that's kinda what I was getting at with my post, whether or not something is bloated largely depends on whether or not it entertains you.

[Gormenghast]

Oh, I agree that Mhybe is important to the plot, just that you don't need quite as much of the oh she's in agony whiny stretches to get that across

As I said, it's an handful of pages. "Quite as much" is merely enough to not be completely made irrelevant.

On a re-read I'm thinking that it's one of the very best parts of the book (a book that still has a number of other flaws). Which I know is a very uncommon opinion.

I think what Erikson did was extremely daring: in a book praised for an explosive, unrelenting plot, he added a PoV of someone ill and who's dying, confined to her room. It's filled with horror and spite. It's unpleasant to read because it rubs against the grain, it grates, but it is indispensable to counter the rest of the book since Erikson doesn't want the excitement to prevail on the other side of human emotions.

Most readers would just read more heroic stuff and leave out the rest, but that's definitely not how Erikson wrote his series.

(most of the stuff you are mentioning occurs in the last 5-6 pages of her little arc, and that part of her arc is interesting and not annoying)

Nope, I'm re-reading MoI right now to comment Tor's reread, so analyzing carefully, and I'm not even close to the end of the book. All I said is there in what I have already read and every time there's a page about the Mhybe it lays a brick.

Nothing in the book is as carefully measured as her arc and her every scene.

I've read MOI three times, and pretty much just skimmed through most of her sections on reread.

Could I humbly point out that this, maybe, is the problem?