Toll the Hounds by Steven Erikson

[Werthead]

Yay! Another person who likes GotM!

I got the impression that people only liked the later books.

I quite like GotM, and would rate it the third-best book in the series (after MoI and DHG). The later books definitely go off the boil a bit, with TBH and HoC as the weakest books in the series by some margin.

[Mme Erzulie]

I know this is slightly OT, but have anyone here read the other Malazan author, Esslemont (I think)? Any good?

[Gigei]

I like the earlier books and my top three are their publishing order:

Ranked:

1. GotM

2. DHG

3. MoI

HoC has waaaay waaaay too much Yawnsa (Karsa). MT is unfortunately not fun except for some parts although many people do like it. BH would be good except I simply don't understand wtf Tavore and Laseen were doing. Generally nice army scenes though and Leoman of the Flails is a great character although I have 0 sympathy for him. BH got me back to liking most of Malazan again after the whole distasteful barbarian-rape-pillage-Karsa and the

SPOILER: omg

Rhulad/Mayen sex scene *vomits*

parts. I guess I didn't like the perversion in some books. Straight up war/political violence is one thing,

SPOILER: yuck

"on camera" rape

is another thing entirely.

I know this is slightly OT, but have anyone here read the other Malazan author, Esslemont (I think)? Any good?

Haven't read it yet but I intend to.

[Veilside]

I know this is slightly OT, but have anyone here read the other Malazan author, Esslemont (I think)? Any good?

I've read Both Night of Knives and Return of the Crimson Guard and they're both pretty good.

NoK has it flaws, and the writing isn't anywhere near the best but it's got some decent information in it for people that want to know more about Laseen becoming empress and it explains some of the events that led to the First Sword dying.

RotCG is much better written, and actually in my top 2 for the entire series. Worth noting that the PS Publishing limited edition release has absolutely appalling proofing though, although Pete Crowther is offering people a free book from the PS catalogue to make up for that.

[duchess of malfi]

I thought Night of Knives could fill the very definition of "mediocre" and that Esslemont is a clunky writer. However, it is a first novel, so I am willing to try Return of the Crimson Guard should it ever become available in the US and see if his skills have improved any over the first effort. Given the first book, though, I will not go out of my way to seek out the second, or pay the exchange rate or for overseas shipping on it.

I should add that I feel a bit bitter about the whole Esslemont thing. When I started Malazan, it was said to be a ten book series by Erikson. Then all of a sudden, in order to get the whole story I also had to also read some books by Erikson's unknown buddy with unknown levels of writing skill.

A buddy who does not even have a publisher in my country.

Of course now Erikson is also planning on writing at least six more Malazan books (not counting novellas), in addition to his ten sometimes overpadded unedited cinder blocks.

By the time Erikson and Esslemont are done with Malazan, I have the feeling that they will rival huge rambling series like Mccaffrey's Pern for sheer number of books, of hugely varying quality, and perhaps also with no real ending in sight...

[Veilside]

Of course now Erikson is also planning on writing at least six more Malazan books (not counting novellas), in addition to his ten sometimes overpadded unedited cinder blocks.

I think he mentioned another 6 novellas too

[Rhaco]

By the time Erikson and Esslemont are done with Malazan, I have the feeling that they will rival huge rambling series like Mccaffrey's Pern for sheer number of books, of hugely varying quality, and perhaps also with no real ending in sight...

It is a little discouraging, isn't it. Oh well. Hope for the best, I guess.

[duchess of malfi]

Let's go all out with our hopes then, and also hope that neither author has a literally talentless child to carry on their legacy like Todd McCaffrey or Brian Herbert. :sick:

(A respectful child as with the Tolkien legacy is always acceptable, but seems to be the exception rather than the rule).

[Trencher]

I haven't read more than the last page for fear of spoilers (I've only read 4 or 5 books) and lack of time, but I wanted to pop in and say that I just started re-reading GOTM, and I realized that I think this series (at least up until where I've read) is vastly superior to almost everything else out there in the fantasy universe, barring Tolkien and Martin (and possibly Hobb).

If people have trouble relating to Erikson's characters, I suggest they stay far away from ever reading Bakker. I think Erikson makes it a bit difficult for the reader in that few of his characters are fantasy stereotypes or cardboard cutouts, and he won't go out of his way to make sure you can differentiate between them. That doesn't mean they're all the same (as I have heard people complain), rather that people who spend a lot of time together and share a lot of (often life-altering or -threatening) experiences tend to become alike, at least as far as outward appearances are concerned. His characters do feel eminently real to me, and when you pay attention and read acutely, they all have different personalities.

I am halfway through DG and have a hard time really caring about any of the characters. I find them underdeveloped and a little boring. Maybe one needs patience with Erikson's characters, but I have heard many people just say he's not that great with character development so I don't know if I should even continue. I think I will at least finish DG. I'm not looking for a cardboard cutout, I just don't want them to appear to be cardboard anything which is what many of their personalities appear to be from what I have read so far. I just don't see enough of what makes them tick to get emotionally involved.

My take is Erikson tells us their names and ranks and then moves right on with their journeys/struggles and then pours on tons of magic practically without limit. A battle will be in progress and it's nothing out of the ordinary for a spirit to just come out and make legions vanish or ancient warriors to pop out of the ground (all of this within 2 pages). How can any battle no matter how well described be interesting when there is hardly any limit on what could happen? It just comes across as too easy for me. As if the price of magic is far too low. Maybe I need to be patient, but did Sormo have to pay a price to allow that "thirsty spirit" to destroy 2 legions of Tithansi archers in DG? The magic and supernatural events come across as cheap, easy, and far too often.

As Orson Scott Card mentions in his book "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy", he discusses the details of a class he taught on the subject. He said to his students-

"At the very first session , I asked them to think of the 'price of magic'. In a fantasy, if magic has no limitations, the characters are omnipotent gods; anything can happen, and there's no story. There have to be strict limitations on magic. Dungeons and Dragons uses a seniority system that may work well for games, but for stories it is truly stupid"

When I read the wiki on Malazan and came across this quote-

The Malazan world was originally created by Steven Erikson and Ian Cameron Esslemont in 1982 as a backdrop for role-playing games using a modified version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

it all started to make sense. Maybe that's why it doesn't work for me.

I also don't find the characters 1/4th as interesting or realistic as GRRM's. Without deep interesting characters I don't care much about their struggles or how powerful Erikson might hint that they are. If he does eventually develop them or makes them more interesting later, then I might have more inclination to keep reading.

Now I really want to like this series and don't want to give up if it gets better, but that's the way I feel about it after almost 1.5 books. I even bought the first 5 books in anticipation of them being good after all the praise.

[Joanna vander Poele]

Another six novellas? Hot damn, I'd better have some serious Kellanved/Dancer bartendering... seriously, can you tell I want this to happen?

PS Trencher you can always send your books to me...

[Mme Erzulie]

Trencher: Yeah, if you don't like it now, I don't think you will.

I hear this a lot, but for some reason, that's never been a problem for me. Quite contrarily, I get a strong sense of the different characters, and I think Erikson is especially adept at conveying the sense of comradeship that exists between friends. Both one-on-one and group interactions seem very natural and realistic to me. I think the fact that Erikson doesn't give each character some easily discernible defining trait (pull braid, smooth skirts, huff about men), which Martin, for instance, is wont to do, that people assume there is little in the way of characterization. I think they are wrong, and merely need to look closer. It's all there, in the dialogue, in reactions, in habits and quirks. But as with everything, Erikson won't spoonfeed the reader.

To me, the "price" of magic lies in the fact that there are many contesting powers, none of whom would shed a tear if one of them were to be eliminated. Thus, to use your power is to make yourself visible, which is making yourself vulnerable. I also think he explores how such unbridled power affects people (meaning both human and non-human)

I think one of Erikson's main points is that they (the main "standard human" characters (or we, depending on how allegorically you want to read)) are all basically powerless in the face of greater forces such as fate, luck and supernatural entities. That there is little one can do in the way of shaping ones own life, apart from trying to live a quiet life, undetected by the powers that be. And that no one cares for the little guy except the little guy himself. They are merely pawns in the big players' games. On the other hand, you have those few who are able to turn the game on their betters, as it were.

[Gigei]

The mages in Coltaine's army do in fact pay a price, and a high price at that. Having said that, you have to like uber-powered characters to love Malazan. If you can't swallow a "little" thing like a mage destroying just two legions, well...

Malazan is definitely high fantasy and magic has a HUGE impact there. Kallor, I think readers know this from as early as GotM, isn't even a god yet he destroyed an entire continent.

As for Orson Scott Card, *cough* hack *cough* The Shadow Saga *cough*.

I don't believe that writing has such clear-cut rules as Card says. This is fantasy, the whole point of it is that the normal rules do not apply.

Saying thta magic always has top have a price is silly, IMHO. That's like some alien reading about our world and saying "money always has to have price otherwise everyone would be rich as Croesus and it would make a dumb story."

Given that magic could be a natural part of a fantasy world, why should using it have some sort of huge penalty, apart from having to train and study it, of course? Our human geniuses don't have to pay some sort of penalty but their discoveries and inventions shape the world.

So if some mage in Malazan can kill a large number of people, no I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad story.

[IheartTesla]

Does anyone else see an anthopocentric bent to Erikson's writing? Judging by all the races in the Malazan world, you would think that humans arent anything special. But somehow he does manage to elevate some of them to beyond what they should be, IMHO. Itkovian and Paran for instance.....oh and Whiskeyjack becoming Rake's friend and Korlat's lover. Don't know what the Tiste Andii see in humans, with their short lives and all.

[Mme Erzulie]

Well, if you look at history, we sure do have a way of fucking over and displace creatures who were better equipped from nature's side (disregarding the brain, obviously).

[beniowa]

There is a definite anthropocentric bent to the books since Erikson is anthropologist and archaeologist by training. I like how the humans seem to get the upper hand on older, more advanced races. It doesn't make the capitalist propaganda stuff in MT or RG any easier to swallow though.

[Arakasi]

I thought MT was more of an attack on USA, both politically and economically myself.

[beniowa]

I thought MT was more of an attack on USA, both politically and economically myself.

That's what I meant. I guess propaganda is the wrong word. Ranting and preaching endlessly on the evils of said system is more accurate.

[Trencher]

The mages in Coltaine's army do in fact pay a price, and a high price at that. Having said that, you have to like uber-powered characters to love Malazan. If you can't swallow a "little" thing like a mage destroying just two legions, well...

Oh, I have no problem with that at all. I just would like to know what the system of magic entails. Can Sormo summon a spirit to kill off armies at will? How and why? Is that info given later? It's the rules behind the magic system I want to know (eventually). Otherwise it seems cheap and random. Like Erikson is just pulling a rabbit out of a hat whenever he wants to. Rabbits get pretty boring at that rate.

Saying thta magic always has top have a price is silly, IMHO. That's like some alien reading about our world and saying "money always has to have price otherwise everyone would be rich as Croesus and it would make a dumb story."

Then it's worse than Harry Potter where you just wave magic wands. The winner goes to the better wand waver. If magic has no price then how interested would you be in a book about omnipotent beings who can snap their fingers and make anything happen at anytime with no price to pay for using their powers? It would be childish.

Given that magic could be a natural part of a fantasy world, why should using it have some sort of huge penalty, apart from having to train and study it, of course? Our human geniuses don't have to pay some sort of penalty but their discoveries and inventions shape the world.

So if some mage in Malazan can kill a large number of people, no I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad story.

Well, right there you are putting a price on magic. The studying and training is a small price right there. Having a large amount of power is not a bad thing and I don't have a problem with it. It's the rules behind it that should be described. If they are without limit and price then it gets a little silly.

[Trencher]

That's what I meant. I guess propaganda is the wrong word. Ranting and preaching endlessly on the evils of said system is more accurate.

MT has an anti-capitalist theme?

[Gigei]

Meh, it seems obvious to me. There's another mage in BB that has little talent and is often referred to as "he's no Quick Ben." Only the genius level people get the power, you know. Not every little grunt in the army can blast people to pieces.

If magic has no price then how interested would you be in a book about omnipotent beings who can snap their fingers and make anything happen at anytime with no price to pay for using their powers? It would be childish.

Why wouldn't I be interested in such a book? Only people with no imagination would be scared of fantasy books that don't follow the convention. In such a world where power is so easy then only the people's ethics would matter. I could easily read a book about the ethics of power, no problem.

If they are without limit and price then it gets a little silly.

Limits and price are two different things. Price is having to sacrifice 12 children to kill 12 soldiers. Malazan does not have that. Limits, yes. If Sorbo had no limits on his power then he would simply have won the war for them, wouldn't he?