Can't Stand Erikson

[Arakasi]

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.

I don't think there is any such concencus. I don't think there is poor plotting. I think the plots are great. What I can agree on is characterization is uneven. And from what people like Cali and others have said here, there is no such concencus on world building. Writing I agree he isn't the greatest prose writer ever, but imo he is still better than 90% of fantasy writers. He isn't a Kay though there, but thats fine with me. Personally for me the only issue is characterization, but that has more to do with style than anything. Are characters in the Silmarillion, Romance of the Three Kingdoms or the Iliad deep characters? Or are there a lot of similar characters and plenty of archetypes? Are we yelling at Homer for making everyone the same, or commending him for writing an epic saga? I dunno if any of you here have read the 3 books I listed above. But they are all favorites for me and are similar in style to Erikson. Heavy on world building, history, scope and tragedy and low on things like characterization.

As for ordering, you can't read MOI without reading GOTM first. Same you can't really read HOC without reading DG first. MT is the one which is off on its own. You can definately read it before others, but seriously I think the best order is in order, or at worse flipping the first 2. HOC can not be read before MOI because of huge spoilers in it. So yeah throw MT wherever you want, but read 1, 3 and 4 in that order.

[Kalbear]

Well, crap. I was really hoping to avoid reading GotM, since it gets panned so heavily.

I might try MT and see if it's more to my liking first. Thanks.

[Arakasi]

I suppose you could leave out GOTM and just read it 3,4,5 or whatever. However you wouldn't know a lot of characters from 3 that were in 1. And this whole GOTM sucks thing isn't universal. My wife who has read all 5 still has GOTM as by far her favorite of the series, with MT second and DG last.

How I'd describe the books in one word.

GOTM - Action

DG - Anger

MOI - Tragedy

HOC - Struggle

MT - Comedy

[Space Bandito]

I never insulted anyone? By insulting what you like? And I'll probably keep reading Erikson. Maybe a reread is what I need. I just wonder what I'll get out it? As soon as I get the energy. You can tell when people really care about shit. Good discussion everyone.

It is better than most of the stuff out there.

GOTM is my favorite.

[Kalbear]

For the record, I could not stand Silmarillion, and for the most part I didn't like LotR. So there ya go.

The Iliad was an interesting read, but not because of the characters or the plot; it was interesting as a historical fiction and as literary prose. Still, if someone wrote that today, I'd be annoyed.

[Arakasi]

Space Bandito, perhaps you've not been at this board long. Believe me this Erikson discussion has been going on for years. It starts every month or two. So its not a new discussion and both sides of the debate are mostly still the same people. And yes their have been insults. If people come in and say "Erikson is shit and only people with no taste in books could like him" then yes that is an insult.

Kalbear, yeah I can see then why I love Erikson and you're more lukewarm. To me books are more about the world building, history and plot as well as action. If characters are memorable that to me is as important as them being deep. Fingolfin for example. Or Finrod. Their actions in about 1-2 pages of Silmarillion makes me like them as much as Martin's extensive writing of Tyrion. Even though Martin's characters are far far deeper, I don't like my favorite from Martin anymore than those from Tolkien. Archetypes I guess are powerful still to a lot of people, and when Erikson does do in deep character studies he does a great job of it. Paran, Felisin, Karsa, Heboric, Trull Sengar are all awesome characters.

[Mandiric]

Kalbear, I think it would be really interesting if you read MT next. As others have said, it is self-contained. And if memory serves, it deals with a smaller cast of characters than Deadhouse Gates (or if the cast is the same size, they're all in roughly the same physical vicinity), so you won't have to worry about inter-relatedness.

Count me among the Erikson fans. If he delivers again with Bonehunters, it will be a near thing between him and Martin for my top fantasy spot.

Erikson delivers for me what Martin cannot, or will not. I greatly enjoy the fact that some of Erikson's characters are able to love and trust each other. The bleakness of Martin's series gets to me at times. Every time I see a Westerosi woman of common birth, I know she's due to be raped, maimed, and killed within a few paragraphs. Erikson's pure, artless humor is a welcome respite.

More, Erikson's world has such a sense of history -- thousands and thousands of years, and all of them complete with mysteries and colorful events. Whereas in Westeros, society has been stagnant for what -- four thousand years?

And I do enjoy the flash-and-bang magic Erikson writes. This is fantasy, which to me implies a requisite sense of wonder. ASoIaF sometimes feels like non-fiction (especially in the latest), and while I adore this for what it is worth, sometimes the geek in me wants to see fireballs and swords that can chain souls.

I really think the two authors compliment each other well, and I hope they keep writing for a long time.

[Kalbear]

Wow. Liking Erikson over Martin because his world is less bleak...that's...well, that's not what I would have said. Again, just reading DHG...but if there were a more pragmatic group of folks in the universe, it would have surprised me.

[Arakasi]

DG is definately the most depressing of his works, but there is still bonds here. Between Meppo and Icarium. Between Kalam and Fiddler, as well as Quick Ben. And there is comedy. I love the part in DG where Coltaine demotes the captain of the engineers. Just classic. That part always makes me laugh. I agree with Mandiric. The Malazan world is less bleak than Martin. No one ever seems to have any fun in Martin's world.

[caladanbrood]

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.

I don't know if this post has been replied to directly in the two pages of crap since it was posted, because it's beyond me to actually read it all. But anyway, what I would say is that you're right kalbear, the Icarium/Mappo plotline doesn't directly connect to the Chain of Dogs. But why should it? We're aSoIaF fans here, since when was full inter-connectivity of plotlines a must have? How does Dany's faffing about gathering support have to do with the Viper of Dorne, and Samwell Tarly fighting the Others? Directly? Absolutely nothing. Icarium and Mappo's quest does, however, connect with Karsa in HoC, and thus with Shaik, very indirectly. But thats not the point. Whats wrong with having two unconnected plotlines in a book in a series? For that matter, whats wrong with having four or five? If every book in the series had to be limited to connected plotlines, there would be about twenty or thirty books!!! And the same with aSoIaF, and almost any other half-decent fantasy series. But everyone knows thats not how it works. They will probably all connect in the end, and thats good enough for me

[EHK for Darwin]

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.

Fair enough, but I think the worse problem is his defenders either subtly or not so subtly ripping on the intellect of anyone who doesn't like the series for certain reasons. I want to vomit everytime I read 'Well, some people don't like complex worlds' or 'Some people can't handle that kind of depth and like light, easy fantasy' or 'Wow, they just don't get it. Guess they're not as brilliant as I am'. Its patronizing and insulting. And the majority of the responses to 'Erickson bashers' I've seen contain at least one condescending little line like that in it.

If they could defend the work without denigrating others who disagree, this whole debate would be much more civil and worthwhile.

[Kalbear]

I could tell ya about what the Dorne plot has to do with Dany...but it'd be an AFFC spoiler.

Seriously, while it doesn't have anything directly to do with Dany, I know what Dany's end is going and how she connects with Westeros, at least. I know from book 1. I know how Sam fighting the Others connects with Dany, and even if I didn't, I'd know how it connected to the Prologue of AGOT, and I'd know how all of these things interrelate. Plus, Sam and Dany's chapters COMBINED don't take up as much plotting as Icarium and Mappo do.

What I don't know or have any handle on is why I should care about these two. Okay, Icarium broke a warren. So? What does that have to do with anything? Why does Icarium have this memory loss, and why go to such ends to fool Mappo? And what does this have to do in any way with what appears to be a book centered about the Malazan empire? As a reader, this kind of thing leaves me feeling a bit adrift. While letting the reader figure things out themselves as they go along, having a small anchor to at least say 'okay, this is why I'm actually reading about this right now' is a good thing. And it's not there. It is there in all of ASOAIF. Dany might not be important to the rest of Westeros now, but we know why we're seeing things through her eyes - because she is the exiled heiress of the crown (and later for the Dragons and all sorts of other bits) - and we're telling the tale of Westeros, of the 10 years after the rebellion, so seeing what the exiled ruler of Westeros is doing makes sense.

Seeing Sam kill the Others - and seeing the threat the pose to the realm - makes sense, given that the Others were set up in the first book.

I don't mind having two unrelated plotlines to each other. What I'm missing is how any of them interrelate. I keep expecting there to be some kind of correlation here, some interweaving, when in reality I could just read Mappo and Icarium's tale basically separate from the entire book and not miss a beat. Furthermore, I don't see or understand what the point of their quest is, so from the perspective of someone who's just read this book, they seem fairly immaterial to the matters at hand. Yes, they could be hugely important down the road, but right now they seem useless to the rest of the book. Now, if it was because I had missed GotM and skipped ahead I'd say it's one thing - but it appears that they don't show up there, either. So I'm left wondering...why?

I can see how the rest of the plotlines vaguely intersect. At the very least, they all are related to the Empress and the Apocalypse, of Sha'ik and Sha'ik reborn. I'm not hugely offended that they don't relate to each other - though most of the endings leave a lot to be desired. But Icarium and Mappo...it feels like this story belongs in another tale entirely. Like, have DHG be about the Chain, Kalam and Felisin, and have I&M's tale told in another part, where they can refer to events in DHG (and in a kind of cool way), pick up Apsalar's thread a bit more, and then carry on with their quest.

Maybe I should ask this. Did I miss out on some crucial info about I&M in GotM? If I did, I'll shut up and just read that or something. It doesn't sound like I did though.

[werewolfv2]

Fair enough, but I think the worse problem is his defenders either subtly or not so subtly ripping on the intellect of anyone who doesn't like the series for certain reasons. I want to vomit everytime I read 'Well, some people don't like complex worlds' or 'Some people can't handle that kind of depth and like light, easy fantasy' or 'Wow, they just don't get it. Guess they're not as brilliant as I am'.

If somebody says point blank that they just don't like the way Erikson does it, that is one thing and perfectly valid as a reason to dislike Erikson.

If somebody doest like massive worlds with incredible age/depth/etc then just say that.

Sadly many many complaints are worded in such a way that its clear the person just doesn't get it and hasn't grasped onto what others have figured out. Don't say that Erikson sucks because you don't understand what he writes when its clear that a good number of people do in fact grasp what is going on.

Saying that Erikson isn't for people that like lite/easy fantasy is perfectly valid. Erikson isn't the easiest to read, he isn't the best writer out there and his world is off the scope. He tells many tales and some of them have been going on for 100,000+/- years. Erikson isn't simple, so telling people not to read him if they only like lite/east reading makes good sense.

If a reader gets maxed out by Fiest (I like Fiest) then I wouldn't recommend that person trying Martin, and Martin is a walk in the park in some aspects compared to Erikson. Martin is a very very good writer, his world (compared to Erikson) is much simpler and easier to understand, he doesn't have much magic and he doesn't have a history that goes back forever. All that factors into Martin being much more accessible and work against Erikson. To often Erikson has to suffer being compared to Martin when in fact comparing them as "like" authors is about like Fiest being listed as a "like" author to Martin.

[Arakasi]

Sam and Dany's chapters combined I would say take up a 1/4 of the book, as much as Meppo and Icarium did. More so when you consider a good part of that was from Fiddler's pov.

Okay, Icarium broke a warren. So? What does that have to do with anything?

This is hugely important. It wasn't explained why so in book 2, just that he broke it. The ramifications of that go throughout the series. To pull a Jordan, rafo. I could answer, but it would be freaking massive spoilers. I'll try and give one thats not too huge.

SPOILER: black

Kellanved and Dancer were able to through the deadhouse find the throne of shadow and take power of it, basically allowing them to ascend to godhood and split from their mortal Malazan Empire. The realm they rule now? Its part of Kurald Emurlahn, the Warren of Shadow. That warren is the one that Icarium shattered. There are several other parts of this warren, 2 of which you see in DG, although you might not have known it at the time. So yeah if not for Icarium than no path to godhood for Kalanved and Dancer, as well as several other things that are huge in DG not happening. Actually if it had happened there would have been no Apocalypse either, as you'll find out later in HoC. So yes Icarium's shattering of the Warren does tie him to the Malazan Empire. There is connectivity there, you just have to read further on.

Why does Icarium have this memory loss, and why go to such ends to fool Mappo?

The first is explained already and was done in DG. When Icarium did what he did he damaged himself. Hence memory losses. As for Mappo, thats interesting. The nameless ones obviously are lying to him. Most plausible explanation is to give him a reason to not trust Icarium and to stay on him. Don't see why this is difficult. Icarium is a walking timebomb and they want to make sure Mappo doesn't help him. Its not like I've not seen the "person kills A's friend/family and blames it on group B to get A to side with him or do what he wants". Its in tons of stuff I've read and watched on TV. Its not that crazy a plot point.

And what does this have to do in any way with what appears to be a book centered about the Malazan empire?

I dunno. What does all the political infighting and civil wars have to do anything with the Others, who from the very start were set up as the menace in ASOIAF. And yet in 4 books there has only been a bit of movement from them. Seems like you're applying a double standard here. You allow Martin to do things you criticize Erikson for. Why? Maybe you trust Martin more. I don't know. But it seems you're giving Martin the benefit of the doubt and not Erikson.

Also you've read 1 book, that being the second in the series. You are trying to discuss this with people who have read 5 books, who have seen a lot of this connectivity you complain about. We see a lot better how it connects because we've read the books. The overarching plot (the equivalent of the struggle against the others) is not really introduced to book 3, but once you find out about it you see how stuff in the first 2 connect to it. Especially DG. Like I mentioned in the spoiler above, there is connectivity. Lots of it. You just are in the dark about it now.

Maybe I should ask this. Did I miss out on some crucial info about I&M in GotM? If I did, I'll shut up and just read that or something. It doesn't sound like I did though.

I don't think so. From what you read you seem to have got most of it. You just can't see how it connects with the rest of the stuff, because of only reading one book.

[Kalbear]

No, I understand why Icarium has his memory lost. Perhaps I didn't explain myself. Why isn't Icarium dead? Why guard him, and let him wander around with a broken memory with a guardian that doesn't know what he's really doing, instead of, well, KILLING HIM? If it's important that he is delivered to Shadowthrone, why not have Shadowthrone just lock the bastard up with the oodles of magic that they have available? If he's so dangerous, why not just have him dead?

It's not that crazy a plot point, but it lacks a lot of intelligence. Again, it might be because I don't see what you're able to see, and that's fine - but at this point it feels less like a mystery and more like just...random stuff.

As to the ASOIAF and Martin bit: A better example is not what the infighting has to do with the Others - it's what the Others have to do with all the infighting. The Others are clearly the small subplot so far in ASOAIF, and no matter how the series ends they'll not be the primary story. But either I suppose is fair, if flawed. I know how the Starks connect to the Wall, and how the kingdom being weak means that it is unlikely that the Wall will get the support it needs. Is it an integral part of the plotting? Well, not for the first two books, though Stannis and Jon certainly make an interesting pair at the end. Mostly, we don't get a ton of focus on the Others, and we do get a ton of focus on I&M. The Wall sections aren't quite as relevant to the rest of the ASOIAF part, but they are fairly relevant. Even in AGOT, when we're seeing the Wall through the eyes of one Stark family member (and remember - ASOIAF is about the Starks first and foremost), who is searching for another Stark family member. That's about 18 bajillion times more connection to the main plot than I&M have to the Malazan empire, as far as I can tell. Same goes for Sam's chapters - telling about the search for Benjen Stark, then running into Bran, and then fixing the game so that Jon becomes LC - all of these things are hugely relevant to telling the tale of the Stark family.

Which is a big core component of ASOIAF.

Ah well. For me, comparing this to Martin is not even close to reasonable. Martin made AGOT a fairly well-contained storyline (the ends all...well, they end, and things happen) while setting up the world for progression on any number of fronts, all the while showing a lot of foreshadowing and making things progress naturally from one step to another. It is a lot easier to follow, not because the world is somehow simpler (how many people got R+L=J on any reading, for instance?) but because Martin knows that he should set this up as a storyteller to give the readers an anchor into his world. Erikson, apparently, doesn't set up this anchor until book 3 of his series. The end result is probably the same, but the path to get there is wildly disparate.

[Arakasi]

Umm, did you see what the Hounds of Shadow were able to do to Icarium? If you had read in GOTM you would have seen how impossible it is to kill Jaghuts. Even if you bash them repeatedly, break all their bones and so on they won't freaking die. And if you did that with Icarium the guy would go insane, and with his power that would be a major fuck up. Now yes the Azath could have taken him and kept him imprisoned, but Meppo and Fiddler stepped in for him, since they felt the guy is worth saving. And its not like he is a horrible guy. He did what he did in an attempt to free his father.

Why does it lack a lot of intelligence? I know you've seen Babylon 5. Was it unintelligent for Morden to kill Adira to force Londo back to his side? It worked for him and the shadows, although it cost him in the end.

As for the Others I still think they're a main part that has been neglected. I mean the story is called a Song of Ice and Fire, and they are very clearly the ice. I'm pretty sure by the end an invasion from the north by the Others will be a signifigant part of the series. Seems like the focus of the story in ASOIAF keeps changing. First its about the struggle for the kingdom of Westeros. Then you say its about the Starks. What is it about then? And why can't you extend that to Erikson and not critique him for not making it just about the Malazan Empire. Also I would disagree with the point of all the books being self contained. They all have cliffhangers for 1-2 characters in each book. (Martin that is)

You're right in that Erikson doesn't give you an anchor right away. Look at the start of aGoT. Its a long exposition about the family and the recent history of Westeros. And it takes 150 pages basically. It has the traditional start to the series. In comparison GOTM throws the reader right into events right off the start and never gives the standard exposition that nearly everyone else (Martin, Tolkien, Jordan) does. It is a different tact, and it very clearly throws a lot of people for a loop. But it works for others too (for me for one) and in the end it does get to the same point, but in a less traditional way. I care for the books not because it has an anchor or goal I know everyone is working toward (which to me is pretty silly and is a complaint I have with fantasy series in general. Why does everyone in a world have to be working or going towards a common goal? Many books give me the idea that outside of the POV and their environment, nothing really happens. Everyone else is in stasis. Erikson always has convinced me that there are other things going on in the world. People and places we haven't gone doing stuff thats important. Occasionally there might be interaction, but just because there is doesn't mean they have to be part of the main plot.) I care for them because I enjoy the story.

[Kalbear]

Sigh.

Yeah, Icarium got abused. Again, I wonder why you can't just hold him somewhere gibbering for eternity. If they can't kill him for whatever reason, imprison the bastard instead of risking ULTIMATE HORROR AND TORMENT, or whatever it is they're risking.

Why does it lack a lot of intelligence? Because an enemy that is working against you - even unwittingly - is not a good enemy to have. A good enemy is a dead one or one working for you. To go to a B5 deal, this is the difference between killing Garibaldi and programming him. Now, if Icarium has been programmed or turned against his normal views and is actually working for the Azath, that's one thing - but I never got that impression. My feeling is that Icarium is basically being led around, not having the slightest clue what the hell's going on, while Mappo gets lied to left and right because...uh...um...that's the best they can do? Or something? Just seems odd and random and not thought out well. It might be that his enemies aren't that bright. They're gods, but they don't have to be smart gods.

As to ASOIAF...sigh. Come on, ASOIAF is the story of the final battle...eventually, maybe...but for four books it's been the story of Westeros's political struggles and civil war, and the primary focus of that has been the Starks and how they react to it all. The setting is the Westerosian civil war. The players are the Starks. It makes sense to follow the main connections to the players, as well as follow anyone that is key to the primary setting.

The setting in MBF is the Apocalypse and Sha'ik reborn, I think, and the reaction of Malaz to all that. The players are various folks associated with that. Now, can you see why I might have a problem seeing how I&M connect with this at all? Apparently they kind of do because they helped set up in some peripheral way a couple of the Gods of Malaz, but that is more like a footnote you might get. Is it worth seeing them in a quarter of the book?

In terms of ASOIAF being self-contained, what I mean is that events start, occur and end during the book. AGOT is about Robert and Ned's death, and the resulting chaos that occurs immediately after that. ACOK is about, well, the clash of kings, with Stannis fighting Tywin as the primary conflict and resolution. ASOS is the culmination of the war, the end of the old guard and the finale for the big names. Furthermore, resolution is made. At the end of AGOT, Ned is _dead_. The world has changed, hugely, in so many ways. While the books end on something of cliffhangers - or at least wondering 'what's going to happen next!' - they end after significant events have happened, to all parties involved.

At the end of DHG, we have the superb ending for Coltaine, and an interesting progression for Felisin...but what has happened to Kalam and I&M? Kalam has done his quest, found it not to be interesting, and then...stopped. Okay, so the end result of his adventure is...to have delivered the book, which was going to happen anyway? I&M's end result was...what? Icarium isn't held, they're on their merry way again, Mappo still hasn't told him (at least in any state he can remember) and they don't know anything more, nor is Mappo closer to the truth. End result...back to square one. The reader knows a bit more, but we've had to slog through a lot to get that exposition.

[Durckad]

In terms of ASOIAF being self-contained, what I mean is that events start, occur and end during the book.

Dude... there's no way in hell that the aSoIaF books are anywhere close to self-contained.

This argument works even less when you account for aFFC. In fact, aSoIaF is even less self-contained than the Malazan books. At least the Malazan books have proper endings. aGoT just ends. aCoK just ends. aSoS has probably the most contained ending and aFFC barely even started some plotlines before ending them.

If there's any reason I give Erikson such a hard time sometimes, it was because of the fans. Seriously, before I even read the series, I had never met a more irritating group of pompous assholes (though Planescape fanboys come close) who were always ready to cut down an author and say how much they sucked compared to Erikson. Really quite irritating.

Still, Erikson's good, though he has his problems. I'm still not sure where the story is going and I'm not sure if I should ultimately care, but so far, the ride is entertaining.

I still wish his dialogue wasn't so shitty...

[Doran Doran]

For the record, I could not stand Silmarillion, and for the most part I didn't like LotR. So there ya go.

Nope, that's not it. I read Sillymilly once and enjoyed it. Just thinking about Erikson makes my eyes glaze over and boning up on tax regulation seem exciting in comparison.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Icarium gets a lot of background in the 3-5 books, especially MT, but he is only becoming important to the main plot in TBH. I think it would be really lame to introduce him and Mappo in TBH as deus ex machina. We have to know who he is - otherwise why should we care what happens to him?

Malazan books are somewhat independent, but they also form the overall plotline which has clear purpose. I would say that Erikson's plotting is superb - a lot of things interconnect and make sense when put together. I agree that he has serious problem with consistency, but I still think he is going to be superior to Martin, because he knows where he is going, and he will actually finish his series which seems very doubtful in Martin's case.