Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 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. That is kind of terrifying. If I had to pinpoint my biggest criticism, it would probably be the characterization. It's not that it's bad. One must attempt characterization to be bad at it. There was not one single character in the first book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 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? Both, to be honest. I genuinely do find his action scenes suspenseful and exciting and all that. He's particularly good, for me, at selling the reactions of the characters within the scenes, likeTrull's in this scene- yes, me again- or Paran's observation of and flabbergasted response to the reveal of Moon's Spawn in Memories of Ice - "Abyss below, did Rake hide it". I felt Trull's exhaustion there, and I was about as awed as Paran was when Moon's Spawn rose. Comparing Steven Erikson to Werner Herzog? Time to lock this thread.Hey, Herzog's pretty good too you know. That is kind of terrifying. If I had to pinpoint my biggest criticism, it would probably be the characterization. It's not that it's bad. One must attempt characterization to be bad at it. There was not one single character in the first book. I don't think Erikson's character skills got worse at all, in fact they probably did get better (certainly from GotM, which is his roughest work in almost all respects). He actually does low-key sometimes, with Tavore for example.The big flaw in the second half of the series is that he lost a lot of control over his pacing. Bonehunters being a particularly big example of this because the book essentially builds to a finale in the middle with the actual Bonehunters sequence in the middle of the book, then spends another 200 pages wrapping up all the Seven Cities loose ends before wrapping it up with another finale at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I can't think of any author I'd compare to Michael Bay, but I haaaaate Michael Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I can't think of any author I'd compare to Michael Bay, but I haaaaate Michael Bay. Robert Stanek. Eta: in seriousness, Dan Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 No, Stanek is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Dan Brown is nothing like Michael Bay. The others that make good comparisons to Michael Bay don't work in fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolivar Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I get that a lot of you guys have read more of this series than me (I'm up through House of Chains + Blood Follows) but these criticisms really have crossed over to hyperbole. I'd try to counterbalance some of them for the OP, weren't I convinced you've already successfully scared him off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 As someone mildly interested what all the fuzz is about, but does not want to read anything like Hegel or Sartre: Would it make sense to start with a later volume if the first book is tough going? Or would that be completely hopeless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 As someone mildly interested what all the fuzz is about, but does not want to read anything like Hegel or Sartre: Would it make sense to start with a later volume if the first book is tough going? Or would that be completely hopeless? Apart from Gardens of the Moon, there are only really two other possible jump in points - Deadhouse Gates (Book 2) and Midnight Tides (Book 5). Neither would be considered light reading, but both are superior to Gardens, and both can be read without referring to other books. Bearing in mind though that you really need to read the first five before progressing on to the rest of the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 As someone mildly interested what all the fuzz is about, but does not want to read anything like Hegel or Sartre: Would it make sense to start with a later volume if the first book is tough going? Or would that be completely hopeless?You're in no danger of that, no matter where you start the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilusmagnus Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 You're in no danger of that, no matter where you start the series.I think he asked about how complicated it was to read, not about how philosophically deep it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Rather than complicated I found it incoherrent as a series. The shame of it is that there are individual story arcs that are very strong on their own. I didn't see a reason why this material was published as a series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Yes, I had the impression they were hard to read. I think I'll postpone them for a while. I do not care so much about how coherent a huge series (I might never completely read is) but if the books tend to be boring and confusing from the start, it's probably not my cup of tea. (And I have not really grasped what the fans like about Malazan either. So I am lacking in positive reasons to read them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilusmagnus Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 (And I have not really grasped what the fans like about Malazan either. So I am lacking in positive reasons to read them.)From what I understand, the best part of it seems to be the great endings amd battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobmartell Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 The Dagger and the Coin series, imo, is a better fit if you're having this many questions already. I've tried MBotF once, got 3/4 thru and gave up. I was unable to immerse myself in the world. TDatC on the other hand is a less heady world but with great characters and one of the most human protagonists ever written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (And I have not really grasped what the fans like about Malazan either. So I am lacking in positive reasons to read them.) I think it's the sheer mind-boggling scope of the thing. You're dealing with an author with a background in anthropology and archaeology, and it shows: it's less characterisation of individuals, and more about exploring various cultures over untold millennia. Plus some of the genre concepts are awesome (the Pannion Domin is one of the great examples of a truly terrifying fantasy regime. They make Pol Pot look sane). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Anyway, finished The Bonehunters. Yes, the thing picks up towards the end (enough to avoid bottom of the rankings in terms of my Malazan series preferences), but the book as a whole needs a damn good edit. I will be getting Reaper's Gale from the library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Reaper's Gale is pretty good, a lot better than The Bonehunters. I didn't see a reason why this material was published as a series. Publishers. I think the original idea was that Erikson wanted to just write books set in this world, some stand-alone, maybe a few small series, a bit like a "straight" version of say Discworld. However, the publishers went a bit barmy and asked for a ten-volume series linked together, and with a colossal amount of money on offer ($750,000 in today's money, which would be huge today let alone in 1998) Erikson agreed to their request. Sort of. The links between some of the storylines and books are fairly tenuous, it has to be said, but that does help (making each book stand alone rather than a single multi-volume story you have to read through in one go). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.