Malazan

[EHK for Darwin]

I'd agree that Feslin is by far the best written character that Erikson has ever managed. (she was the one I referred to in my earlier post touching on Book 2) Best in all of fantasy? I don't know. I tend not to make such statements largely because I'm not nearly as widely read in the genre as alot of other people here. And while she was good, I always presume that there has to have been a better one out there. Than again, its not exactly an uphill battle. The Genre isn't terribly noted for its compelling, complex female characters.

[potsherds]

<snip>

Agreed - and this, IMO, is why she is one of the most well-written female characters out there. Note that the people who are disagreeing with this are men. Most men find it very difficult to believe that Felisin could go from being a spoiled rich girl to essentially a drugged out prostitute in the course of a day, and that is essentially the major argument put forth (by men) on why "Felisin isn't well-written". On the other hand, most women can see exactly how easy that would be, given Felisin's situation, and the concomitant self-loathing that would engender.

<snip>

Yup - I agree. I think the majority of these who "don't get it" seem to be men, and they find Felisin "whiny".

<snip>

...I also think that's why most men have a hard time trying to relate to Felisin. Our culture encourages a view of women as finding nurturing to be easy. This, IMO, is why people find Catelyn an easier character to understand than Felisin. Not that Catelyn is more well-liked.

Oh - and when the end of House of Chains comes, and Felisin wonders why she wasn't loved...that was so painful.

<snip>

Good post, Chataya. I was kind of confused why all the boys seemed to dislike the character, or think she wasn't particularly well-written. Everything about Felisin in DG and HoC was quite well-written in my opinion. And I never once questioned the evolution of her personality, it made perfect sense to me.

She isn't perhaps the best female character written in fantasy, but she's definitely up there, and the best Erikson's done so far.

[kuenjato]

My feelings on Malazan are a bit ambiguous at this point. Most of my opinions run alongside EHK's, and I stopped reading the series about 100 pages into Midnight Tides. I suppose the word that sums up my overall impression is inconsistant -- each of the books has moments that stun or at least entertain; and every book has something that makes me want to throw it against a wall, usually at the ending. Even Deadhouse Gates , the overwhelming fan-favorite, had a few scenes during its conclusion that felt incongruous with what Erikson had been building hundreds and hundreds of pages toward... and quite frankly, the dues ex gets very old when it occurs at the climax of every book. Also, Erikson's prose is all over the map, ranging from breathtaking to utterly appaling (Gardens of the Moon, which I liked, is the worst offender in this regard). Sometimes I wonder if Erikson employs an editor, or if he bothers to take any advice on trimming subplots or even sharpening the way the words flow across the page.

I suppose I'll pick it up again when the series is finished, though the lukewarm reception to volumes six and seven make me hesitant.

Felisin is very well written but I find Catelyn "deeper" and "more complex" by far, particularly given the rather poor way F's storyline ended / was developed in HoC.

[Errant Bard]

Most men find it very difficult to believe that Felisin could go from being a spoiled rich girl to essentially a drugged out prostitute in the course of a day, and that is essentially the major argument put forth (by men) on why "Felisin isn't well-written".

Don't tug your braid yet.

Speaking for myself, I consider it like that: if I am disbelieving, it is because the writing didn't make me believe. I have no problem with felisin's personality doing a backflip, or with the rest of her actual story, but with the way it is presented. This can bear to be repeated: I do like her story (except the very end, heh), truly, but I think Erikson's writing is just barely sufficient to present it. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I believe gender isn't so great a difference that it precludes anyone from emphatising with, or at least understanding any character, if they are well written.

No even mentioning that the author is a man so that gender discrimination is hard to swallow.

Lastly, if we look at this the other way, are you sure that this complexity you speak of isn't a projection rather than something existing in the text?

[Ser Barry]

Wert old bean, you called it excellent and then gave it less than 3.5 stars per book.

[Xray the Enforcer]

I'd agree that Feslin is by far the best written character that Erikson has ever managed. (she was the one I referred to in my earlier post touching on Book 2) Best in all of fantasy? I don't know. I tend not to make such statements largely because I'm not nearly as widely read in the genre as alot of other people here. And while she was good, I always presume that there has to have been a better one out there. Than again, its not exactly an uphill battle. The Genre isn't terribly noted for its compelling, complex female characters.

Yeah, I'd probably fall in line here. Felisin is definitely well-written (and for naysayers: her character did not evolve "overnight" -- there was that sea voyage she had to take, and Erikson made it clear what she had to do to survive even that. By the time you see her in the mines, she's already been brutalized). She is the best-written Erikson character (that I've come across), and she's definitely in the upper echelons of well-written characters in fantasy in general, but I'm not sure I can say with any conviction that she's The Best! She's certainly compelling, though.

[Jaxom 1974]

Yeah, I'd probably fall in line here. Felisin is definitely well-written (and for naysayers: her character did not evolve "overnight" -- there was that sea voyage she had to take, and Erikson made it clear what she had to do to survive even that. By the time you see her in the mines, she's already been brutalized). She is the best-written Erikson character (that I've come across), and she's definitely in the upper echelons of well-written characters in fantasy in general, but I'm not sure I can say with any conviction that she's The Best! She's certainly compelling, though.

But she's really not.

Point about the sea voyage and how that certainly doesn't make her tranformation that "instantaneous", but it still comes across that way. And the reasoning for that, for me, is that we're never inside her head during that downfall. There's nothing compelling in hearing about it after the fact. We don't see her faced with the intial decision or see her inner conflict (if there is any) over how she came to decide that fate. At least, any reasoning we're given just doesn't feel like she dealt with any inner conflict. Instead it's more along the lines of, "I'll see my sister dead, I gotta survive, oh whoring myself out will keep me alive". That's obviously a generalization, but it certainly seemed that she jumped into that scenario right away, rather than struggling to survive and then finding herself with all other options exhausted.

Frankly, if I've interpreted any of that wrong, well, I chalk that up to some convoluted writing on Erikson's part.

[enos]

Iv read everything from C.S. Lewis to Bakker to Martin to Tolkien to Rowling to Eddings to McCaffrey to Jordan to Edison (i started a goodkind and thought my brain was going to die from boredom...if that counts) but somehow never made it to Malazan.

Well, did you like those I've highlighted?

If you do, chances are you'll like Malazan.

No need to elaborate further.

[Xray the Enforcer]

well, this is now coming down to, obviously, the individual reader experience. Would you really want to read a chapter about Felisin struggling with whoring herself out to get clothing on that ship? Or would you come into this thread and complain "I don't read Erikson to read the POVs of conflicted nascent whores." Because I'd bet fucking good, hard cash that many of the Felisin nay-sayers would do exactly this. Basically, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But sure, we can blame it on Erikson's tortured prose (won't be the first time I've bitched about it). I think it is obvious in the text that Felisin struggled with her new role (even the flashback of the sea voyage implies this), but to others perhaps it is not obvious. Such is the glory and frustration of fiction writing.

[Jaxom 1974]

Touche, X-Ray.

(But it really wasn't that obvious. Besides, if she'd truly struggled, wouldn't there be a tinge of guilt peeking through later on?)

[Xray the Enforcer]

Touche, X-Ray.

(But it really wasn't that obvious. Besides, if she'd truly struggled, wouldn't there be a tinge of guilt peeking through later on?)

I can diggit, Jaxom. We all get different things from the books -- and we also all bring different things to the table. Some of us might feel guilty about becoming a prostitute, others might not. I'm not sure I would -- we all have to do unpleasant things to survive now and again.

[kuenjato]

Question: Does Fel return in the series after House of Chains? Because the ending to that book was anti-climatic to say the least -- it felt as if Erikson got tired and the pages reflect it -- and pretty much all of F's "development" in volume 4 was poorly done, IMO. I wouldn't rank her the best female character of fantasy fiction for that alone - sure, she was strikingly done in Deadhouse Gates, but it didn't pan out in the end. Consistancy of quality and all that, which is why GRRM is still tops in my rankings -- Feast felt like half-a-sup but still maintained the overall quality (IMO again).

[Lord Baelish]

SPOILER: Felisin

She's dead. End of story. No coming back for her.

[Jaxom 1974]

Jaxom - that's the crux of it, I think - Felisin really didn't have that many moments of conscience on her sea voyage. In fact, in her reflections on it, she thinks of how easy it was. And that is 99.9% of the reason for her self-loathing. I think she would have felt more honorable and had less self-hate (which she tried to drown in drugs) had she struggled more.

For those of you who say, "but Erikson never says this", this is one of the few moments where Erikson shows TRULY GOOD writing - he shows, not tells. All the conversations with Heboric and many of the flashbacks to the sea voyage, and some of her interactions with Beneth show this.

Anyways - I did re-read her storyline over again just to see if I was projecting anything, and I don't think I am. Her storyline is sparse, but every interaction and every sentence has impact; there isn't any filler.

It's some of Erikson's best writing, IMO.

Respect for the opinion. I don't think the writing showed that at all. I truly feel the impact of where she ended up to be lessened due to the fact that we're not really shown any of her journey yet with her character telling us that it is just how it is. Like X-Ray says, different things from the same book. Happens all the time.

[Werthead]

Even Deadhouse Gates , the overwhelming fan-favorite

Memories of Ice is the most popular book in the series. I've seen it trounce the rest of the books in polls on three different forums (including Malazanempire) several times over. That said, as with Storm of Swords being the most popular ASoIaF book, there's plenty of dissenting voices out there. Interestingly, given its negative reception in this thread, Midnight Tides usually emerges as the third-favourite with DHG inbetween.

Sometimes I wonder if Erikson employs an editor, or if he bothers to take any advice on trimming subplots or even sharpening the way the words flow across the page.

Erikson does not use drafts. Each novel is basically the first draft, although he does review each day's work at the start of the next day and makes (usually minor) edits. This is how he cranks out a 1,000 mmpb-page novel in about eight months.

Wert old bean, you called it excellent and then gave it less than 3.5 stars per book.

The whole is greater than the sum of its part

[john]

On Felisin: I can't see much complexity either, I'm afraid. Horrific circumstances engender horrific consequences, it's as simple as that. Erikson uses characters as a device to move the plot on, to set the mood, to bring something to a conclusion. There's virtually no treatment of characters in and of themselves. Felisin just trudges on, collecting protectors, rejecting them, suffering, regressing, changing. What's her drives and motivations through all this? Is she learning, adapting? This is barely touched upon. Her brother and her sister are playing two significant roles in the story. Is this important? Not particularly. It might as well have been two unconnected characters. Her story is a downwards spiral, but there's no hints of redemption or a reversal of fortune, like a good writer would provide - before crushing us with the climax.

I do like Felisin though and Erikson deserves praise for her execution, in some respects. Definitely wouldn't call her well written though. She's compelling, like X-ray says, but she's hardly an intricate study.

[kuenjato]

[

Erikson does not use drafts. Each novel is basically the first draft, although he does review each day's work at the start of the next day and makes (usually minor) edits. This is how he cranks out a 1,000 mmpb-page novel in about eight months.

The whole is greater than the sum of its part

Well, that says it all. I was really astounded by certain sections of GotM; it could have used at least three or four edits -- mostly streamlining and improving the prose.

I can see why Erikson neglects character development, given the scope of his world and all the various ideas floating around with that whole "first draft" technique. Despite my personal reservations on certain aspects of the Book of the Fallen, I'm glad the industry is still releasing ambitious-if-flawed material rather than hyping insulting drivel like Newcomb or promoting dumbed-down shite like Goodkind.

EDIT: A question for those who claim F as the best-written female character (and hey, I actually liked her AND the Mhybe[!]) -- given the, er, letdown of that particular storyarc in House of Chains (and the overall impression of the character and her arc), does this at all factor in?

[EHK for Darwin]

Memories of Ice is the most popular book in the series. I've seen it trounce the rest of the books in polls on three different forums (including Malazanempire) several times over.

I definitely don't get the love of MoI. As far as I'm concerned its the beginning of the end for the series, the source of most of its most serious problems. Really couldn't stand large chunks of it.

[Atreides]

I've only read Deadhouse Gates, and it didn't really peak my interest...well, except for Coltaine. Verdict: At the least, read Deadhouse Gates because of the Chain of Dogs storyline. Oh, and Fiddler is just badass.

[Sir Thursday]

The reason people I liked Memories of Ice was the siege of Capustan. The epic proportions, the terror of the Tenescowri, the poignant sacrifices that are made, and the surreal amount of blood spilled all combined to draw me in and keep me enraptured. Other plus points were the significant quantities of badassery on display (Envy, Tool, Rake, Brood, Gruntle, Quick Ben...the list goes on), the central threads running through the series starting to manifest themselves, and some unanticipated deaths. If Capustan had supposed to have been the climax of the novel, it would have been my favourite of the series. However, that much thrill coming in the middle of the novel made all that came after it seem like a denoument, and consequently it suffered in my opinion, allowing Midnight Tides to knock it off top spot for the series in my eyes.

Yes, you read that right, Midnight Tides. I can kind of understand people finding it slow to start and so on, but I thought it was probably the most polished of his novels to date. It was, as someone said earlier, a well constructed tragedy: a poignant tale of how a family is torn apart by the machinations of the Crippled God. And what machinations they are! Throw in a dash of comic relief and a fair amount of philosophizing (which personally I enjoy) and you have my favourite book of the series. One of Erikson's strengths is his ability to write tragic circumstances that feel right - see the finale of the Chain of Dogs, the Battle of Coral and the throneroom scene in MT, which reminded me vaguely of Hamlet. I remember someone once saying that while Martin makes his deaths shocking and unexpected (and yes, I realise the Red Wedding is foreshadowed, but not to the extent where you know it's going to happen on the first read unless you were told about it), Erikson makes his deaths climactic events that are built towards, thus giving you a sense of fulfillment when you read them. Ignoring his strength as a worldbuilder, I feel that that is his principle strength as a storyteller, and it shines through in Midnight Tides.

Sir Thursday