Erikson's Reaper's Gale book review

[Caligula_K]

No worries, there should be more than enough corpses to satisfy you!

Patrick

Hurray for corpses! Glad to hear so.

[kcf]

Well I finally finished the 900-page beast that is Reaper's Gale . I'm a fan, so it's no surprise that I enjoyed it. I found it to be a big improvement over The Bonehunters and now I can't wait for book eight. My full (non-spoiler) review is here.

[Arakasi]

Good review there. Although amusing that you said the book was better than BH but gave it a lower score.

[pat5150]

Ken,

Even though you enjoyed Reaper's Gale more, you gave it a lower score than The Bonehunters!?! And I thought my own scoring system was screwed up!

Patrick

[kcf]

Good review there. Although amusing that you said the book was better than BH but gave it a lower score.

Yes I did give it a lower score than BH - the true reason is that I think my score for BH was too high and I'm hesitant to go back and adjust earlier scores as they reflect what I felt at the time. If I were to go back, BH would score 7.

[Kat]

Ok, this is only tangentially related, but there's so many Erikson threads that I've gotten lost navigating them. Someone, probably someone in this thread, recently wrote a summary of House of Chains (I think) and posted it....in one of the Erikson threads. I know I just read HoC a month ago, but I have to say it's the book I understood the least, and I just received my copy of TBH (RG is coming soon) and I want to start it ASAP. Does anyone either remember who wrote the book summaries, or what thread they were in so I can narrow my search?

Many thanks!

[Calibandar]

KCF

IMO, 7.5 is a bit of a low rating for a book that you also call " brilliant" and " utterly addictive" in the same review.

btw what do you mean by the phrase:

Reaper’s Gale feeds the animal driving fans of Malazan as the series rushes towards finality

It confounds me. Erikson's fans drive animals?

[Calibandar]

Kat,

Check page 3 of this very thread......

[kcf]

KCF

IMO, 7.5 is a bit of a low rating for a book that you also call " brilliant" and " utterly addictive" in the same review.

btw what do you mean by the phrase:

It confounds me. Erikson's fans drive animals?

I go into detail here about my scoring system for reviews - 7.5 is a high score for me, and anything over 5 is something that I consider more good than bad. I ranked RG at 7.5 mostly because I found the end to be a let-down and Erikson's writing to be inconsistent at times (I say a bit more in the second to last paragraph of the review). Also, my references to 'brilliant example' and 'utterly addictive' were to the series as a whole and not specifically RG.

As for the phrase 'feeding the best' or 'feeding the animal' is often used to refer to addiction with 'beast' or 'animal' refering to the addiction itself and the act of 'feeding' being indulgence of the addiction. I suppose that I'll edit out animal as it may make the metaphor more clear. I imagine it's a phrase only common to the US and it could even be regional within the US.

[Calibandar]

Also, my references to 'brilliant example' and 'utterly addictive' were to the series as a whole and not specifically RG.

Yes, that was clear, but since you didn't distinguish Reaper's Gale as being better or worse than the general quality of the series one may assume it applies to RG as well.

But certainly your rating system is very different from my own.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I must say I liked Redmask storyline, which surprisingly seems the most unpopular.

SPOILER: TRG

I think it is interesting because it is twist on cliched tribal peole fighting emire which trie to destroy them plot - because the Awl not only lose - I certainlly expected they will be victorious - but also are quite unsympatheitc. Mystery of Redmask identity and his supposed death is intiguing and I certainly hope everything will be made clear in the next volumes.

If I was to choose the most pointless storyline which could easily be cut out, it would certainly be Shurq Elalle - but fortunately she doesn't take very much place.

[Decius]

I must say I liked Redmask storyline, which surprisingly seems the most unpopular. It was nice twist on cliched theme of downtrodden tribal people fighting the empire which tries to destroy them,

SPOILER: RG

because the Awl not only lose - I certainlly expected they will be victorious - but also are quite unsympatheitc. Mystery of Redmask identity and his supposed death is intiguing and I certainly hope everything will be made clear in the next volumes.

Well, that teaches me not to read a "spoiler free" thread before finishing the book...

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Sorry, I have mistaken ut for spoilers thread for some reason. Alredy fixed.

[Caligula_K]

WOOHOO! It just arrived, about a week before it was supposed to. A bit beat up, but nothing too bad. And now, it is time to lose my social life for the next few days.

And on closer inspection, I do like the cover.

[Kat]

My copy of RG just arrived, although I obviously can't start it until I've finished TBH, which I'm about 1/3 of the way through. I just have to say, though, holy crap, this is a large book. I thought that about TBH, but I have the MMPB edition of that (1200 pp.) and the US hardcover or trade editions of the first five, so...for those who have some better way of telling, what's the longest book in the series?

[Werthead]

Difficult to tell. MoI is bigger than TBH by a whisker I believe (the pb is slightly shorter but the font size in TBH mmpb is slightly larger and the trade paperback of MoI is longer than the trade of TBH where the font sizes are more comparable), but it's difficult to tell as word-counts haven't been released. Reaper's Gale is - I believe - the longest book in the series however, edging past both TBH and MoI by a comfortable dozen pages in trade.

[Calibandar]

I was reading some Amazon reviews of Erikson's books and one in particular of Memories of Ice captured my feelings so precisely that I wanted to post it here. I didn't write, don't know the person who did, but pretty much agree word for word, including the 3 out of 5 stars review.

These books aren't for everyone. There's a lot of good. But then there's also a lot of bad. Whenever I read Erikson, I feel like i'm fighting a dragon. His prose is convoluted and his story even more so but not in a great way. It's a tad irritating to have to read 3 commas and 2 dashes in every other sentence. He tries really hard to sound sophisticated in favor of keeping things simple and explaining things. I've all ready gotten past the hard parts like having to remember 20 generic names like Gruntle, Picker, Spindle, Fiddler, etc.

The number of plot holes is astounding. For example, the Moranth Munitions are incredibly powerful. How come none of the Moranth flew some of the munitions to Capustan? Because then there would be no siege to write about. Anomander Rake can literally breathe darkness upon a mob of Tenescrowri and wipe an entire line down the ranks. Why didn't he fly to Capustan in his Soletaken form (bring Caladan Brook with him)? Both of them probably could've wiped out the entire Pannion Domin army by themselves! There are many, many more. I know every story will inevitably have plotholes. But the ones in these books are so blatant it just makes it kind of eyerolling to read.

There's no balance of power at all in the books. It seems Erikson just writes whatever he wants, introduces new powers or limits them according to whim. The Hounds are supposed to be so powerful, yet Fiddler admitted he could slay all of them with a rigged crossbow bolt. I'm not even sure why they have regular infantry. A K'Chain Che'Malle can take down 20 Grey Swords by themselves, yet three Seguleh can kill one easily, but they can be controlled by Lady Envy just as easily. It just makes no sense a lot of the time. One second, an ultimate force arrives, then another one, then another. A girl appears and she becomes all of a sudden the leader of the T'lan Imass, then another is the leader of the whirlwind. No ones powers are really explained and they just seem to be able to do anything when it's necessary. Kalam can pull out a rock and magically warp anywhere along the Imperial Warren. What the heck is the imperial warren and why dont' they do that more often instead of traveling by horse and foot?

Some of the parts are really overly dramatic. Anomander Rake just finishes wiping out a line of Tenescowri. I'm guessing thousands have just died. He then feels the need to use Dragnipur to slay the 6 insane witches for some reason (plot device for Whiskeyjack to intervene?). The commander comes up and kills the 6 insane witches and he feels guilty. The character development feels forced. I felt the exact same way when I read the part about Itkovian and how he 'eased' all the souls burdens.

All of a sudden Paran is the master of the deck and he has to decide whether or not to let the Chained God in. Seriously, what the heck is the deck and why is it so powerful? Who made the deck and how does it work? Who selected Paran? I'm guessing it's because he escaped Dragnipur, but some details would be useful. Perhaps Erikson mentioned what the deck was in 2 sentences in Gardens of the Moon. Forgive me if haven't been taking notes.

Everyone talks the same. Except for perhaps the eccentric characters, like Kruppe. Everyone refers to everyone else by rank whenever they address them. They all say, "Damn Bastard." They all use "... [adjective]" profusely. In fact, he must do that once in every paragraph, no matters who's talking.

Erikson has potential. The world does feel epic. Some of the characters are really very intriguing. But this is a first series, and it shows. I'm not sure if everyone is just impressed superficially by his prose. If someone could explain to me if i'm missing something, that would be great. I will probably continue the series, but I will not be expecting that much. My desire to find out what happens just isn't as great as it was when I read Gardens. The novelty is gone, and you realize that Erikson is just going to continue writing without really making the story grow other than adding new characters, new enemies and changing things according to his whim when he needs a plot device to bridge events.

Can folks relate to this, or perhaps refute it?

[kedlav]

I was reading some Amazon reviews of Erikson's books and one in particular of Memories of Ice captured my feelings so precisely that I wanted to post it here. I didn't write, don't know the person who did, but pretty much agree word for word, including the 3 out of 5 stars review.

Can folks relate to this, or perhaps refute it?

His prose can be convoluted, especially in Gardens of the Moon. He does club you over the head with things that don't make sense until (large) books later. His names do seem kind of weird, but they help to differentiate bit characters that would otherwise be rather generic secondary characters (distinguishing characteristics are common to many authors for secondary characters, Erikson just doesn't beat around the bush about it). There are plot holes (I challenge you to find a book without them). There are *serious* power up related issues. That being said, Erikson is an excellent worldbuilder who is not afraid to challenge his readers in a variety of ways (death, humor, changes from experience, etc.), who writes compelling novels (despite flaws) that are reasonably consistent (and he owns up to inconsistencies, unlike certain other egotistical twits), and are historically compelling. I'd kill for a novel titled 'A History of Wu,' simply because every bit of background is interesting and compelling. I find him to be among the top authors I read (fantasy or not) and I'm fairly discriminating as far as what I truly like. Read the books with an open mind, accept the fact that magic doesn't make sense when you're in a world without magic, accept Gardens of the Moon blows the first read through, and don't evaluate a plot line until the character is dead or five books later, 'cause it probably isn't over yet (w00t real repercussions) and you'll truly enjoy Erikson.

[IheartTesla]

My copy hasnt yet arrived, even though it was sent out on May 6th. Cross-Atlantic shipping takes a while apparently - but it was supposed to be here this past Wednesday. I'll give it a few more days before firing a letter.

[Arakasi]

I could refute some of those points (some are silly) but why should I bother? I've been arguing this debate for 4+ years. To those who love it great, to those who don't great, to those who have mixed feelings great. But you're not going to get others to accept what your enjoyment/interpretation of the book is, no matter how passionately or diligently you pursue it. If there is anything I've learned here in 5 years on these threads, that's it.

Just finished RG btw. Very good book, although I'll need to do a reread to clear some stuff up as well as find where it fits in the scheme of things. It wrapped up stuff pretty well though and I'm curious where the next book is going. The death toll was very impressive, and there were several touching/shocking deaths.