Question Regarding Erikson

[Gigei]

[quote name='Velos' post='1468783' date='Aug 5 2008, 09.04']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...[/quote]

Uh huh. I read the Malazan books based on the recs on this board and they were all "hang in there, it starts off confusing but gets better" but I simply wasn't confused enough for it to matter. It's really not so difficult.

I can definitely see people not liking it, (Paran is sooo damn boring rofl) but getting *confused* by it?! Why?

Dune by Herbert and Wolfe's Severian series were more confusing than Malazan. GotM is light reading lol compared to that.

[quote]So anyway, what's the preferred reading order again?[/quote]

There isn't one. Some people say you should start with DG as it is the "best" book that most people like. This would kinda work, really.

[beniowa]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1468839' date='Aug 5 2008, 09.09']Uh huh. I read the Malazan books based on the recs on this board and they were all "hang in there, it starts off confusing but gets better" but I simply wasn't confused enough for it to matter. It's really not so difficult.

I can definitely see people not liking it, (Paran is sooo damn boring rofl) but getting *confused* by it?! Why?

Dune by Herbert and Wolfe's Severian series were more confusing than Malazan. GotM is light reading lol compared to that.[/quote]
I think what most people mean by GotM being confusing is that Erikson jumps right into a major battle without any explanation of the magic system, races, or the political and military systems. I guess the complaint is that there weren't any frames of reference to judge what was happening. Not that this is a bad way to start a plot as plenty of authors do this all the time. The problem is that exposition is not exactly Erikson forte. Better and more experienced authors like Martin handle this better because they're good at giving little hints and snippets where it's needed. Obviously, confusion is less of an issue with some readers compared to others. ;) I certainly was confused a little at the beginning, but then that was quickly replaced with boredom.

[potsherds]

Ugh. Paran. Damn, that guy has certainly replaced Karsa as the character I least look forward to hearing from in Erikson's books.
Can't disagree with the criticisms folks have with Erikson's writing. I have to say that I really wish he'd write another book as magnificent as the first three. I agree with Wert that he hasn't been as stellar since those three. I wouldn't consider putting a halt to reading his series though. Too much of the complexities of the series have really pulled me in and I'd like some partial resolution to them.

[Mister Manticore]

[quote name='beniowa' post='1468992' date='Aug 5 2008, 11.06']I think what most people mean by GotM being confusing is that Erikson jumps right into a major battle without any explanation of the magic system, races, or the political and military systems. I guess the complaint is that there weren't any frames of reference to judge what was happening. Not that this is a bad way to start a plot as plenty of authors do this all the time.[/quote]

I think there's a term for this. Something about Light Switches in the Narrative? It's certainly not new, and I can almost respect Erikson for simply trying to do that, even if he fumbled with it.

[Kalbear]

As stated, I wasn't confused by GotM in the sense that I couldn't follow what was going on; it wasn't that hard to follow, and GotM is one of his better edited works.

What was confusing was [i]why I should care[/i]. This was the part that Erikson continually fails to get across in most of his novels. It gets better somewhat as you go on, but especially in GotM the actual lack of value in what anyone is doing and why is really not fleshed out. As said earlier, it's up to the readers to infer why they should care. This makes a difficult and cumbersome read for a lot of people.

The exception to this is DHG; I had no problems figuring out why I should care in that book. I think that's really why it's considered by many to be his best work, as it's one of the only parts in his story (and really, the only novel) in which it is absolutely clear what is important, what is being fought for, etc. Compare to Midnight Tides where the entire book is a setup and has no relevance to virtually anything done before and very little resonance to anything else.

Anyway, GotM isn't good for the whole 'not caring' bit. The characters aren't fleshed out well, so it's hard to sympathize with them. The plot is both labyrinthine and slow. The actual reasons behind anything aren't really revealed until future books, and the story is disjointed and doesn't come together particularly organically. It does pay off at the end, but it's a hard payoff.

As always, I'd recommend reading DHG first.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1469335' date='Aug 5 2008, 21.17']What was confusing was [i]why I should care[/i]. This was the part that Erikson continually fails to get across in most of his novels. It gets better somewhat as you go on[/quote]Funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. Starting from GotM, I did care about the characters, about what was going on and about whatever potential for epic stories seemed to be here, then as the story progressed, my interest wore off, because the flaws were always present and there was actually no pay off story wise. The "epic finales" of the books end up looking like artificial melodrama that have little bearing on the story in the end, and the most satisfying moments get drowned under the pointless meanderings, horrid structure, regular character level ups and forced badassitude.

At one point I just asked myself if I truly still cared about the basic, simple story under the obfuscating fluff, and I didn't anymore, not enough to put up with the rest.

[Trencher]

[quote]What was confusing was [i]why I should care[/i]. This was the part that Erikson continually fails to get across in most of his novels. It gets better somewhat as you go on, but especially in GotM the actual lack of value in what anyone is doing and why is really not fleshed out. As said earlier, it's up to the readers to infer why they should care. This makes a difficult and cumbersome read for a lot of people.[/quote]

My feelings exactly. The lack of character development kills it for me. I don't care about the grand events and the uber powerful beings flooding the book surrounding the people I have no emotional attachment to. For me that is the biggest problem.

Other problems are the overuse of magic that becomes numbing. Once again, maybe it's because I am coming off reading GRRM that the contrast is too great, but it comes across as if Erikson can't help himself with the random acts of magic. The use of magic is so frequent and in such large doses it becomes boring. Almost anything can happen at any time.


[quote]The exception to this is DHG; I had no problems figuring out why I should care in that book. I think that's really why it's considered by many to be his best work, as it's one of the only parts in his story (and really, the only novel) in which it is absolutely clear what is important, what is being fought for, etc. Compare to Midnight Tides where the entire book is a setup and has no relevance to virtually anything done before and very little resonance to anything else.[/quote]

If DG is his best I think I am done.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1468615' date='Aug 5 2008, 10.12']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.[/quote]
I couldn't disagree more.

Those are usually the parts that I think are poorly executed and a bit gratuitous, like the battle between the demon and Rake in GotM, or the repetitive fights in Termorlor in DG, or the ninja battles in the same book.

If I read the book is for the meaningfulness of the stories, the journeys of the unconventional characters and the inventiveness with which a lot of fantasy canons are turned on their head. It's like a critical view on the genre, distilling from it what makes it unique and shying away from the easiest/beaten path. And it is incredibly ambitious, even if it means that sometimes it fails.

Moreover, I really likes how he writes. I think he's the one with the most "literary" intention among all fantasy writers. He tries to do something with words without just pushing on the plot thoughtlessly and that's a layer that keeps me there for so many pages. Action scenes do not do it for me. If they are creative and unexpected, ok. But sometimes they just feel like being added to please that kind of reader.

This is what I think and not always he succeeds. But at least he tries hard and more than everyone else I read up to this point.

I think you'll never really enjoy this if you look at it only from the point of view of what a character does and when. There are surely other fantasy books that do the plot better, with more sympathetic and familiar characters. I think Erikson will never satisfy the reader who just wants a cool story. The "cool" story is there and probably the most obvious aspect, but if you want that, other writers can deliver more on that field.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1469650' date='Aug 5 2008, 15.55']Moreover, I really likes how he writes. I think he's the one with the most "literary" intention among all fantasy writers. He tries to do something with words without just pushing on the plot thoughtlessly and that's a layer that keeps me there for so many pages. Action scenes do not do it for me. If they are creative and unexpected, ok. But sometimes they just feel like being added to please that kind of reader.[/quote]
I assume by this you mean epic fantasists; otherwise your statment is ridiculous. Even among epic fantasists I still think you're dead wrong. Erikson IMO is a poor writer. If you're looking for good prose in epic fantasy I suggest you try Daniel Abraham or Scott Bakker. Erikson really ranks near the bottom in that catagory.

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1469650' date='Aug 5 2008, 15.55']I think you'll never really enjoy this if you look at it only from the point of view of what a character does and when. There are surely other fantasy books that do the plot better, with more sympathetic and familiar characters. [b]I think Erikson will never satisfy the reader who just wants a cool story[/b]. The "cool" story is there and probably the most obvious aspect, but if you want that, other writers can deliver more on that field.[/quote]
You see, I think the "cool story" is about all Erikson's novels are good for.

[Trencher]

[quote]You see, I think the "cool story" is about all Erikson's novels are good for.[/quote]


Which is how I see it as well. Erikson is pushing forward his "cool story", but leaves out all the details I would want or care about to join the ride.

[quote]If you're looking for good prose in epic fantasy I suggest you try Daniel Abraham or Scott Bakker.[/quote]

I have read neither, but someone else on this board said if you didn't like Erikson because of his characters, you would feel the same about Bakker. Not true in your opinion I take it?

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Trencher' post='1469670' date='Aug 5 2008, 16.36']I have read neither, but someone else on this board said if you didn't like Erikson because of his characters, you would feel the same about Bakker. Not true in your opinion I take it?[/quote]
Not true at all, IMO. Bakker's characters are fully realized, and most of them are sympathetic. Perhaps this person said this because Bakker's protagonist is not sympathetic, but he's not supposed to be (think Thomas Covenant). He is, however, extremely well realized and fully fleshed out; a thing that can't be said of Erikson's characters.

[Kalbear]

A lot of people dislike Bakker because of his characters, but for very different reasons than Erikson. Erikson's characters are largely unsympathetic because they're simple and not all that well fleshed-out. Bakker's characters are fleshed out to the point of pain, but his characters are unsympathetic because they're asshats.

If you enjoy reading about asshats, Bakker has some great work in store for you. If you don't it is also some tough reading. Of the two I far prefer Bakker to Erikson.

[MinDonner]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1469650' date='Aug 5 2008, 23.55']I couldn't disagree more.

Those are usually the parts that I think are poorly executed and a bit gratuitous, like the battle between the demon and Rake in GotM, or the repetitive fights in Termorlor in DG, or the ninja battles in the same book.[/quote]

Oh, you misunderstand me. By setpieces I don't mean the silly monster fights or whatever, I mean stuff like Itkovian's sacrifice, the conclusion of the Chain of Dogs, the rout of the Dogslayers, etc. There are definitely too many pointless little battles between one badass and another, but it's worth it to get to the really big stuff.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Chataya de Venoge' post='1469685' date='Aug 5 2008, 19.50'][b]F*ck, that is EXACTLY what I thought when I first saw the "floating citadel" in GoTM.[/b]

Some people probably think it's terribly original, because they haven't read the canon of the genre, which does indeed include DragonLance :) Sad to say, there is nothing teribly "new" in Erikson's approach to fantasy. And the Forgotten Realms novels have more internal consistency and readability.[/quote]

I read the those novels, too!

As for not being "new" lol few writers are. Even ASoIaF isn't terribly "new" either. GRRM simply writes better than most but it isn't "new" at all.

[RedEyedGhost]

I have been waiting to read Erikson's new introduction to GotM since Wert mentioned it sometime around the first of the year (I think), and thanks to [url="http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1748"]cesspit.net[/url] who [url="http://rhwidget.randomhouse.co.uk/flash-widget/widget_lg.do?isbn=9780553819571&menu=0&mode=1&cf=4aa5a2&cb=77c8da"]linked to randomhouse[/url] I was able to finally read it. It was well worth the wait! Lots of bitterness and vitriol in that intro. Good stuff.

[quote name='Gigei' post='1468710' date='Aug 5 2008, 05.31']I don't get the whole "I was too confused by the first quarter of the story" thing. I wasn't confused at all.[/quote]

I think most of the "confusion" stuff comes from Erikson himself. He loves to go around saying that the reason he couldn't get a book deal in the US was because all of the publishers he approached said that GotM was "Too complicated, too many characters. Too... ambitious." (page xvi of the new UK mmpb of GotM, and second link above).

I never thought it was very complicated, but what do I know.

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1469650' date='Aug 5 2008, 16.55']If I read the book is for the meaningfulness of the stories, the journeys of the unconventional characters and [b]the inventiveness with which a lot of fantasy canons are turned on their head.[/b] It's like a critical view on the genre, distilling from it what makes it unique and shying away from the easiest/beaten path. And it is incredibly ambitious, even if it means that sometimes it fails.[/quote]

Can you explain this? I see this comment quite a bit (just like the "too complicated" comments), and I don't see it. What is so different compared to the rest of fantasy?

Erikson himself admits that he didn't do anything new [quote name='also page xvi of the new UK mmpb of GotM']I could take the fish-eyed retrospective angle here and say how [i]Gardens[/i] marked a departure from the usual tropes of the genre, [b]and any departure is likely to meet resistance; [/b][/quote]

:o

WTF? I read so many posts on this and other boards from people that want to read great fantasy that is different from everything else out there, but Erikson thinks any "departure from the norm will meet resistance"? :rolleyes:

[quote name='cont.']but my ego's not that big.[/quote]

really?

[quote name='cont.']It never felt like a departure. Glen Cook's [i]Dread Empire[/i] and [i]Black Company[/i] novels had already broken the new ground,...[/quote]

[Gabriele]

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1471226' date='Aug 7 2008, 07.53']I have been waiting to read Erikson's new introduction to GotM since Wert mentioned it sometime around the first of the year (I think), and thanks to [url="http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1748"]cesspit.net[/url] who [url="http://rhwidget.randomhouse.co.uk/flash-widget/widget_lg.do?isbn=9780553819571&menu=0&mode=1&cf=4aa5a2&cb=77c8da"]linked to randomhouse[/url] I was able to finally read it. It was well worth the wait! Lots of bitterness and vitriol in that intro. Good stuff.[/quote]

Thank you, I needed to read that. I'm so tired of being told I can't start a novel in the middle of a battle where the reader doesn't knows who fights whom and why. Oh, I bloody well can, and I will. That scene goes back to the beginning where I always wanted it. :P

[Werthead]

[quote name='Chataya de Venoge' post='1469685' date='Aug 6 2008, 00.50']Some people probably think it's terribly original, because they haven't read the canon of the genre, which does indeed include DragonLance :) Sad to say, there is nothing teribly "new" in Erikson's approach to fantasy. And the Forgotten Realms novels have more internal consistency and readability.[/quote]

Erikson has said somewhere that the later development of the [b]Malazan[/b] world was influenced by him getting the 1E [b]Forgotten Realms[/b] boxed set after it came out and reacting against it: putting the dwarf and elf kingdoms right next door to one another with no culture clash, not delineating where the cropfields are that feed the cities...all I can say is that you don't judge a campaign setting by its first release, as later [b]Realms[/b] products focus on this stuff rather too much rather than leaving it to the DM to figure out how it works. Given that Erikson's work is the 'show, not tell' maxim taken to extremes, I'm surprised he ragged on them for this.

However, the [b]Realms[/b] novels aren't extremely consistent, with retcons and inconsistencies all over the shop. But that's 210 books published over 21 years by something like 50 authors, so that's to be expected. The [b]Malazan[/b] books are rather fucked up when it comes to things like continuity ([i]Toll the Hounds[/i] contradicts its own dating several times, sometimes saying it's six years since MoI and others saying it's only 1-2, which is also in keeping with how much time has passed in the rest of the series), which considering it's only two authors publishing over a decade (although the roots of the story go back another decade earlier) is not good showing.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1471226' date='Aug 7 2008, 07.53']Can you explain this? I see this comment quite a bit (just like the "too complicated" comments), and I don't see it. What is so different compared to the rest of fantasy?[/quote]
Would require a list and I'm not good with lists.

Every element of the Malazan world is kinda derived from the genre, but then spun to be seen under a different light. What Erikson himself defines as "defy conventions" in the introduction.

From the way there are so many human races with different cultures and skin tones, how women have important roles in the army, how magic is used, how there aren't no straightforward good characters or pure evil guys, the way the Malazan empire is organized, the original take on undeads, the way the religion is dealt with and gods are a real thing, acknowledged as a real thing. The way a god is created. The deck of dragons and its divination. Etc...

All fantasy concepts, but used originally and critically. It flashed out a world like no other, where history has an impact on the present and where the cultures are truly pertinent to that world and not just classic history sprayed with some fantasy elements.

A difference from example between Erikson and Martin is that Martin's world is that classic history with some sparse fantasy elements. The rules of that world are rather straightforward and accessible. It's like real world seen through a lens and it's also why it is popular being only partially "fantasy". Which is similar to what Erikson said when he said that fantasy can meet resistance.

Erikson instead fleshed out a truly fantasy world where the fantasy elements aren't just "flavor", but that make the world itself and influence directly the cultures there.

Which one you like more or find more intriguing is a matter of taste.

[Gabriele]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1471361' date='Aug 7 2008, 13.45']Which one you like more or find more intriguing is a matter of taste.[/quote]

I like 'em both. :D

[Trencher]

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1471226' date='Aug 7 2008, 01.53']I have been waiting to read Erikson's new introduction to GotM since Wert mentioned it sometime around the first of the year (I think), and thanks to [url="http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1748"]cesspit.net[/url] who [url="http://rhwidget.randomhouse.co.uk/flash-widget/widget_lg.do?isbn=9780553819571&menu=0&mode=1&cf=4aa5a2&cb=77c8da"]linked to randomhouse[/url] I was able to finally read it. It was well worth the wait! Lots of bitterness and vitriol in that intro. Good stuff.[/quote]

Wow. That was the best writing I have ever seen Erikson pull off. Too bad the rest isn't as good.




[quote]I think most of the "confusion" stuff comes from Erikson himself. He loves to go around saying that the reason he couldn't get a book deal in the US was because all of the publishers he approached said that GotM was "Too complicated, too many characters. Too... ambitious." (page xvi of the new UK mmpb of GotM, and second link above).

I never thought it was very complicated, but what do I know.[/quote]


GoTM isn't that confusing, just lacking in details that might get me interested. It's as if he is saying "trust me, the world is already built", without actually doing much worldbuilding or character development. As someone said before, I was just apathetic to what was going on and not sure what he really wanted me to care about. I think it's telling that he didn't really know where to start. So he just skipped over the history and hoped we would be interested anyway. Which is probably why publishers used the word "ambitious". He got too far ahead of himself (not knowing where to begin).

He also mentions Dune as a model for his structure?? I really enjoyed Dune and never felt it had any of the problems found with Erikson's writing. So far he is no Herbert. I actually read Dune after the WoT and thought, "Oh, so that's where Jordan got half his ideas". But he pulled it off well without it appearing as a rip off.