Question Regarding Erikson

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1468361' date='Aug 5 2008, 02.44']GotM is poorly structured because Erikson tried to take his personal D&D campaign and turn it into a novel, without any idea of how to structure a story. It is confusing because while Erikson intimately understood his world and its workings he forgot that we the readers did not.[/quote]
Fancy speculation if it was based on some real facts.

Esslemont and Erikson original campaign was based on GURPS, not D&D and the plot of GotM wasn't based on a roleplayed adventure but on a movie script that was set in Darujhistan and just about the fete.

There isn't really anything "confusing" in GotM. Beside some mysteries that are supposed to be in the air, all the rest is well explained.

GotM isn't in any way poorly structured if not for the fact that it's hard on readers who are trained to look and expect certain things from their fantasy. It's much easier to pick a small corner of the world and present an handful of characters than trying to set up a world where things behave in a realistic manner on the large scale, with different powers one against the other and the named guys just caught in between.

One thing is to criticize what he does and how he does it. One thing is to negate the fact that his choices were motivated. And that some of the flaws some reader find are actual choices.

[Shevchyk]

Have always thought that GOTM was actually his best novel. And the thinnest too, I think. It certainly felt the most self-contained.

[Myshkin]

OMG, I mixed up which RPG Erikson based his novel on. I guess that totally negates my point. Because everybody knows that basing a novel on GURPS is totally awesome, while basing a novel on D&D sucks balls.

Also, are you honestly telling me that things behave in a "realistic manner" in Erikson's world?

As for some of the flaws in fact being "actual choices" by the author: that's just an after the fact cop-out. Erikson totally meant to write a story riddled with continuity errors, did he?

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1468515' date='Aug 5 2008, 06.45']As for some of the flaws in fact being "actual choices" by the author: that's just an after the fact cop-out. Erikson totally meant to write a story riddled with continuity errors, did he?[/quote]You just don't get his style,continuity is mostly "inferred" by the reader. Erikson doesn't care to lead by hand even when it comes to make a story more coherent.

Seriously, though, what's with this earlier argument that readers who don't like Erikson do so only because they don't understand the complexity and span of the story? I see it in discussions about most authors... Don't like Bakker/Rowling/Wolfe/GRRM/Jordan/Goodkind? It's because[i] you don't get it[/i].

[Wyatt]

Saying "you don't get it" when talking about authors is a surefire way of devolving a conversation into absolutely nothing.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1468541' date='Aug 4 2008, 22.34']You just don't get his style,continuity is mostly "inferred" by the reader. Erikson doesn't care to lead by hand even when it comes to make a story more coherent.

Seriously, though, what's with this earlier argument that readers who don't like Erikson do so only because they don't understand the complexity and span of the story? I see it in discussions about most authors... Don't like Bakker/Rowling/Wolfe/GRRM/Jordan/Goodkind? It's because[i] you don't get it[/i].[/quote]
Exactly. I can understand why people like Erikson, I'm just sick of being told that all the errors he made were on purpose, and that I am simply incapable of seeing the brilliance of purposely writing a poorly executed novel.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1468548' date='Aug 5 2008, 07.43']Exactly. I can understand why people like Erikson, I'm just sick of being told that all the errors he made were on purpose, and that I am simply incapable of seeing the brilliance of purposely writing a poorly executed novel.[/quote]
My point is that one thing are errors and somewhat objective flaws (like some excessive deus ex machina and coincidences), one thing is to be blind about some motivations about his choices.

You can say you don't like the style, but can't say that the book is bad because he can't write, or because he "forgot" that the readers don't know his world already. Or that the plot is confused because he doesn't know how to give it a structure. Or that it sucks because it's a book based on a game.

Those are excuses used when there are no actual arguments.

[Shevchyk]

Ooh Oohh! I have an argument! Magic acorn!

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1468554' date='Aug 4 2008, 22.55']My point is that one thing are errors and somewhat objective flaws (like some excessive deus ex machina and coincidences), one thing is to be blind about some motivations about his choices.

You can say you don't like the style, but can't say that the book is bad because he can't write, or because he "forgot" that the readers don't know his world already. Or that the plot is confused because he doesn't know how to give it a structure. Or that it sucks because it's a book based on a game.

Those are excuses used when there are no actual arguments.[/quote]
I can, and I have. You see, I don't believe he is a good writer. I believe he does not know how to structure a story, and I believe writing a novel based on your D&D campaign (I know) is a bad idea. You telling me that I simply "don't get it" is the "excuse used when there is no actual argument". Or at least when you are incapable of making an actual argument.

[Gormenghast]

One thing is to criticize an author because he wanted an effect and didn't execute it well. One thing is to criticize an author regardless of the effect he wanted just because *you* expect and want another.

If a writer wants to write a fun, fast paced, lightweight book and delivers instead a book that is dense, slow and cumbersome, than you can criticize its execution.

But you can't say a writer can't write because you didn't pay enough attention to follow it or because it's more complex than your average good guys VS bad guys.

Some things are targeted to be commercial and accessible to everyone. Some other things demand more, are more complex and don't show it all on a first try. Erikson aside, Wolfe is a perfect example. Say that maybe you don't enjoy the style of a Wolfe's work, but saying it's badly executed when it was WANTED to be that way it's a pointless criticism.

There's plenty of VALID criticism about aspects of Erikson's work. Yours is not and falls in the category of those who diminish the work just because it doesn't match standardized fantasy trappings.

[Myshkin]

Ah, I see. I'm just the dumb guy who wants all my novels to be strait forward. I don't like Erikson because I'm too dense to understand his brilliance. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Seriously guy, do you hear yourself? All you keep saying is "you just don't get it". Let me spell it out for you then: I don't believe that GotM is obtuse because that's the way Erikson wanted it to be; I believe it is obtuse because Erikson has no idea how to construct a story. Could I be wrong? Certainly. But I don't think I am. And if Erikson was purposely trying to be obtuse then I think he failed in the execution.

As for me being some kind of literary moron who only wants light weight, strait forward novels: well, if you were more well read you would recognize my username and the novel it comes from, and realize that I have no problem whatsoever with dense and complex writing. But alas, you are not aware of my reading habits, and so just assume that I'm an idiot (maybe you caught that hint; probably not though) because I don't like the novel you hold so dear.

[Gormenghast]

Nope, I'm assuming very little. Just making plain comparisons to explain my point.

I'm saying your criticism is poor. You say the writer can't write, is obtuse and that the novel is bad because it is based on a game. This isn't valid criticism that is worth discussing, it's just offending an author without providing motivations and also ignoring what the book actually wanted to achieve.

I explained how the wrote decided to start the book in medias res without an easy start to convey a sense of history, as history doesn't have easy staring points so that it is more accessible to the reader. You can criticize this approach, but instead you just deny it, and pretend it was unintended even if the writer explained himself this whole thing.

I'll saying again that Erikson's work isn't perfect at all and I've read plenty of criticism that I consider valid. Yours is simply not.

[Trencher]

[quote]One thing is to criticize an author because he wanted an effect and didn't execute it well. One thing is to criticize an author regardless of the effect he wanted just because *you* expect and want another.[/quote]

And what effect do you believe Erikson was aiming for?


[quote]But you can't say a writer can't write because you didn't pay enough attention to follow it or because it's more complex than your average good guys VS bad guys.[/quote]

I think you are confusing someone saying the Malazan books suck with someone claiming it's not typical fantasy. It can both suck and not be typical fantasy.

[quote]Some things are targeted to be commercial and accessible to everyone. Some other things demand more, are more complex and don't show it all on a first try.[/quote]

As someone said before on this board, apparently Erikson demands the readers have faith in him. I want to have faith that I will start enjoying his writing, plot, & characters more, but halfway through DG I'm not quite caring or impressed yet. Maybe GRRM has spoiled me. If Martin's characters are a "10", Erikson gets a 3 - 4 at best. There's just very little character development so far. Some personality now and then would help make the world feel a little more realistic. I find it event driven and not character driven. A skilled author makes characters come alive. Anyone can write about ancient warriors crawling out of the ground and flying wizards.

And do you think Rake lets Tasslehoff Burrfoot fly the Moon Spawn? :lol:

[MinDonner]

Well, if it's characters you want, then Erikson is probably not for you. Erikson's strength is writing about REALLY COOL STUFF and AWESOME OVERPOWERED SETPIECES. I happen to like both, so Erikson gets a :thumbsup: from me.

[dits]

While I do enjoy Erikson's work he does have some problems in terms of continuity, characterization and (particularly in the later books) plotting.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Ilya Popov' post='1468509' date='Aug 5 2008, 00.36']Have always thought that GOTM was actually his best novel. And the thinnest too, I think. It certainly felt the most self-contained.[/quote]

Same.

I don't get the whole "I was too confused by the first quarter of the story" thing. I wasn't confused at all.

Then again, I have read far more confusing things like "Lord of Light" which is totally non-sequential.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1468615' date='Aug 5 2008, 04.12']Well, if it's characters you want, then Erikson is probably not for you. Erikson's strength is writing about REALLY COOL STUFF and AWESOME OVERPOWERED SETPIECES. I happen to like both, so Erikson gets a :thumbsup: from me.[/quote]

LOL. Yep, agreed.

[quote]I find it event driven and not character driven. A skilled author makes characters come alive.[/quote]

*shrugs* A lot of what I read is plot-driven. Some sf is even idea-driven. Like "what if such and such a thing happened"? I even sometimes enjoy stories purely for the way they are written or the way the writers uses the English language. Why not? Zelazny has one short story that has only dialogue and veeeery little plot. I just enjoy the prose as is!

Actually, there are a wealth of good and sympathetic characters in Malazan, too so I don't also don't get what people are saying.

Krupper, Felisin, Rake, Toc the Younger and Tool, for example, are some good characters in different ways. ;) Of course, there are some characters that I just can't stand at all, like Yawnsa Orshort (Karsa Orlong). :P

In the end, I guess it's just a matter of taste.

[Werthead]

[quote]Esslemont and Erikson original campaign was based on GURPS, not D&D and the plot of GotM wasn't based on a roleplayed adventure but on a movie script that was set in Darujhistan and just about the fete.[/quote]

Actually, it was based on D&D. They moved it to GURPS in 1987 or thereabouts. The actual [b]Malazan[/b] world was created in 1982 using AD&D 1st Edition. They couldn't have used GURPS then because GURPS didn't come out until four years later.

Actually, I quite liked GotM. It's certainly a superior novel to HoC, MT, TBH, RG and TTH, and ties with DHG.

[Procrastimancer]

I am one of those not at all confused by Gardens of the Moon. I was warned ahead of time that people have problems with it, but I have yet to see what is so confusing about any of it...

[Muttering Bill]

[quote name='Trencher' post='1468597' date='Aug 5 2008, 03.13']Maybe GRRM has spoiled me. If Martin's characters are a "10", Erikson gets a 3 - 4 at best. There's just very little character development so far. Some personality now and then would help make the world feel a little more realistic. I find it event driven and not character driven.[/quote]
You've pretty much got it right there.

There are basically two types of characters: Uber-badasses who just walk around spoiling for a fight, and tired veterans who are sick of fighting but do it anyway.

Having read up through [i]Reaper's Gale[/i], I'd say there are only a handful characters that he actually does a fair job developing. Felisin, Mappo Runt, Trull, Fear, and Itkovian all spring to mind. Maybe I'm forgetting one or two, but no more than that.

Erickson's main focus is to entertain, and he does that with extravagant action sequences (he does this very well - imo, I haven't encountered another author who can write a better battle scene), with dashes of silliness sprinkled in. Little details like continuity and character developement are sometimes overlooked because of it. (But, despite the weak chracterization, he still manages to choke me up with some events.)

So, again, if you can't get into [i]Deadhouse Gates[/i], then the series isn't for you.

[Mister Manticore]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1468781' date='Aug 5 2008, 08.03']Actually, it was based on D&D. They moved it to GURPS in 1987 or thereabouts. The actual [b]Malazan[/b] world was created in 1982 using AD&D 1st Edition. They couldn't have used GURPS then because GURPS didn't come out until four years later.[/quote]

Maybe they used TFT! :lol:

Or a time machine to get an advanced copy!

So anyway, what's the preferred reading order again?