Question Regarding Erikson

[kuenjato]

[quote name='Trencher' post='1471732' date='Aug 7 2008, 11.29']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).[/quote]

This echoes my feelings to a tee, though I slogged on and on before growing bored with the seemingly seat-o'-the-pants story development. Inspired by this thread, I pulled GotM off the bookshelf last night and examined the first few chapters. And although I enjoyed the first book more or less on my first read, I have no desire to revisit the world or characters due to the fact that 1) it is incredibly convoluted, with little tangible character development to latch onto, particularly at the beginning and throughout the series (it's hard to care about characters dying when they have very little resonance to begin with) 2) the writing see-saws between inspired and surprisingly weak (DG is a marked improvement) 3) subverting the tropes of the genre is fine and dandy, but when your subvertion borders on the ridiculous (Kalam's storyarc in DG) -- or relies on dues ex machina, which the climax of the first four novels all did -- it leaves a bad taste in the brain, and 5) the plot wanders all over the place and lacks a core structure. After completing [i]House of Chains[/i], I remember thinking "Do I actually care where this is going?" and, 3,000 plus pages into the epic, foricibly answered "Not really." All the cool comic-book style battles and anthropology tangents aside, it felt like a well-written D&D campaign -- or an MMPORG that just goes and goes without an involving storyline to make the farming worth it in the end.

I give credit to Erikson for ambition, but ambition isn't enough. And given the general reaction to the later novels, I'm glad I stopped at book 4.

[Trencher]

[quote]I give credit to Erikson for ambition, but ambition isn't enough. And given the general reaction to the later novels, I'm glad I stopped at book 4.[/quote]

I think the unspoken words of the publisher after telling him it was "ambitious" was, "And you're not pulling it off.". They aren't in the business of rejecting successfully ambitious stories. Erikson's spin seems to be that ambition is frowned upon and he is being almost punished for it because it's not simple enough. Not so. Just do it well.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Trencher' post='1471990' date='Aug 7 2008, 17.00']I think the unspoken words of the publisher after telling him it was "ambitious" was, "And you're not pulling it off.". They aren't in the business of rejecting successfully ambitious stories. Erikson's spin seems to be that ambition is frowned upon and he is being almost punished for it because it's not simple enough. Not so. Just do it well.[/quote]

I wonder why he has a publisher then, one that has agreed to publish 10 books and 3 more later. :rolleyes:

I also find it interesting that the people who complain about Erikson say they do enjoy "complicated" or "ambitious" work yet what they complain about are exactly the ambitious parts of Malazan, for example, the lack of a core plot. :cheers: Yep, the plot meanders all over the place. *rolls eyes* Why shouldn't it? Must every little plot point be magically connected to the main plot with pretty, neat little red ribbons?

There is no "big evil bad dark lord of hell" that has to be defeated. Nor is there "an evil empire ruled by the evil sorceress empress" to be overthrown by the oppressed natives (you know, the dwarf, elf, magician, plucky heroine and barbarian hero team that we all know are unbeatable rofl).

As for not caring about the characters, well SE doesn't use the usual stock characters or techniques that tug on the reader's hearts. Like, for example, the noble and intelligent misshapen dwarf who is rejected by his father but is only looking for true love. ;)

We mostly just get your normal guy/gal who isn't particularly brave or noble and is just trying to get by. Mhybe makes the ultimate sacrifice but all the readers hate her because she whines sooooo damn much about it. Just like any normal person would. I sure as hell wouldn't be at all pleased if *that* happened to me. Felisin is just a girl who isn't particularly smart or strong. Karsa, well are we really supposed to root for him? I hope not lol. The BBs are just soldiers, most are just your regular people.

The uber characters are very distant and not too well-known except by historians and such. Your ordinary person would see Rake and think "huh it's a seven-foot tall guy" and at the party he attended, the regular people had no idea who he was. *shrugs*

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1472543' date='Aug 8 2008, 13.17']Yep, the plot meanders all over the place. *rolls eyes* Why shouldn't it? Must every little plot point be magically connected to the main plot with pretty, neat little red ribbons?[/quote]Yes, actually. Even history books focus on what is relevant to the subject at hand, which is how you distinguish that from Uncle Bob's rambling at the pub.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1472620' date='Aug 8 2008, 08.48']Yes, actually. Even history books focus on what is relevant to the subject at hand, which is how you distinguish that from Uncle Bob's rambling at the pub.[/quote]

LOL. I don't believe we are still living in Aristotelean times at all. Many modern books have themes not linear plots with a definite beginning, middle and end (most especially open endings are very popular). Funny you should mention history there, since it has no real beginning, middle or end.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1472649' date='Aug 8 2008, 15.23']LOL. I don't believe we are still living in Aristotelean times at all. Many modern books have themes not linear plots with a definite beginning, middle and end (most especially open endings are very popular). Funny you should mention history there, since it has no real beginning, middle or end.[/quote]Well, wasn't it the point of your argument that Erikson wrote about something without beginning, end, or central plot to which everything is relevant, and thus it made it ok to write about irrelevant side stories?

Also open endings in history? :huh: What do you mean?

[Kalbear]

[quote]Yep, the plot meanders all over the place. *rolls eyes* Why shouldn't it? Must every little plot point be magically connected to the main plot with pretty, neat little red ribbons?[/quote]If that plot point isn't connected to the main one, it should either be sufficiently entertaining on its own rights or it should be excised. It's called editing. It makes stories better. It wouldn't be a problem if the stories were interesting either, but they're not. So it's much like ol' granddad telling us about the Great War and then pausing to mention how awesome his cherry cobbler was. Sorry, granddad, but I wasn't asking about the cobbler.

[quote]As for not caring about the characters, well SE doesn't use the usual stock characters or techniques that tug on the reader's hearts. Like, for example, the noble and intelligent misshapen dwarf who is rejected by his father but is only looking for true love.[/quote]Here's one of the common mistakes. The argument isn't that Erikson is writing about characters who are unlikeable by normal standards or which are unsympathetic because of their actions. The argument is that Erikson is writing unsympathetic characters because they're simply not interesting to begin with. Their characters are poorly fleshed out, their motivations aren't interesting. Their desires are banal. They aren't bad or flawed or human; they're [i]boring[/i]. And ya know, that might make for a more realistic story in the sense that most people are pretty boring, but it doesn't make it a good read.

[quote]There is no "big evil bad dark lord of hell" that has to be defeated.[/quote]Which is really, really untrue. Each book, in fact, has a Big Evil that must be defeated and usually is. In addition, the whole series has an overarching Big Evil that must be defeated. It even has a name! And its motivations are similarly bland. Hell, we even get cheesy cutscenes with that evil character to showcase how Evil he is. Oooh, edgy!

[Gormenghast]

The sense with history is that things are on a flow and starting points are always artificial ways to see it.

For Erikson the choice was to start giving pieces of the larger puzzle made by the world, with the expectations that the readers weren't all that anxious to see it all right away or fill all the holes.

Besides, I love how parts of the book speak to the reader. If only the reader was willingly to listen:
[quote]Out of your depth, Captain? Don't worry, every damn person here's out of their depth. Some know it, some don't. It's the ones who don't you got to worry about. Start with what's right in front of you and forget the rest for now. It'll show up in its own time.[/quote]
That should be branded on the cover of GotM.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1472721' date='Aug 8 2008, 16.14']If that plot point isn't connected to the main one, it should either be sufficiently entertaining on its own rights or it should be excised. It's called editing. It makes stories better.[/quote]
And it is subjective. Especially for a series whose book are able to provoke so different impressions.

You aren't part of some greater hive mind who has the right of what's worth publishing and what isn't. Your comments just sound as absolute judgments that do not admit any other point of view.

The good thing with books is about authorship. It's the writer who ultimately decides what to express and that should accept the editing. Not some third party point of view who wants to mess with someone's other work.

If you don't like ok. But you make it sound as if your idea of editing is the only one right and that every other point of view is incompetent.

[Gigei]

Oh? And who is this big bad that everyone is trying to bring down?

The big evil isn't evil. Some people brought him down not knowing what they were doing and it drove him mad. He's just trying to break free of prison, you know.

SPOILER: GotM

You do know that the "big evil" guy in GotM comes back as a Guardian.

I am not sure about the Tyrant, not much has been said so far, just hinted.

[quote]Which is really, really untrue. Each book, in fact, has a Big Evil that must be defeated and usually is.[/quote]

The "bad" guys in DG are actually freedom fighters, looking at it in a certain way. Malazan took over their land and they are just fighting back. The Pannions are actually victims, pathetic ones really. Etc. Depends on your viewpoint, I guess.

Perhaps you are reading it as "the BBs are the heroes who fight the good fight" but I sure don't.

[Gormenghast]

By the way, Erikson himself has explained that he doesn't know how much the books sold, nor he really cares. He is interested in the possibility of writing them and being paid so he can continue, and the new contract for six more books confirms that things aren't going so bad.

GotM is some sort of selective process. He's not writing something for the commercial success, and he is content enough if some of the people make through it and love it for what it is. It is about building your niche of passionate readers and know that at least some of them appreciate what you are doing, the way you're doing it. If not everyone loves it, it doesn't really matter as long you can still connect to some readers.

On this forums there are multiple threads just dedicated to mock some writer. And that writer is one of the most successful commercially. Does this mean that commercial success univocally defines quality? If that was true one of the best new writers would be Stephanie Meyer, who already has her own mocking thread.

Every time a writer reaches some level of exposition all kind of readers try it. More readers also brings more naysayers, especially on forums. What is silly is the obstinacy. If you don't like the books, then read something else, as the market isn't so shallow to not present good alternatives. But do not pretend to be the ultimate judge and that your idea of quality is absolute.

Confrontation is always good, but it's ultimately the writer who decides what to do with it. If embody it in the work as an attempt to improve, or just discard it. Erikson especially is one who was always open to criticism in his interviews, but in many cases he explained his choices and confirmed they were deliberate and that, even with the possibility of going back, he wouldn't change them.

That's authorship, and it deserves some respect. Not unanimous consensus, just respect.

[Gormenghast]

P.S.
It's also interesting how some characters get opposite impressions. For example there's who loves Felisin, and who hates her deeply.

Either the writer failed (Erikson wanted Felisin to be hated), or he made the character so deep and fleshed out that it draws different emotions from the reader. Like a non-stereotypical should do.

[Arakasi]

There are plenty of well written characters with fairly good motivations/etc. It's just not all of them. But characters like Felisin, Trull, Karsa, Crokus, Fiddler, Tehol and some others I think qualify. Their background is well described, their motivations are, the issues they've gone through are. Even critics of the series don't argue that Felisin isn't a well written character. Look at Karsa and the changes he's gone through from the start of HoC to where he is now. Crokus has changed hugely over the course of the series, from an idealistic young thief to a bitter killer. Trull's character develops quite well over the time we see him too. Sure there are plenty of characters that are just cyphers, or plain archetypes that aren't developed on, but there are good characters there.

As for plots, well Erikson does as people like KCF have noted is very thematic in how he writes. He writes to explore themes, like the capitalism stuff in MT, or some of the themes he wrote about in TTH. I think later in the series he has gone more into that, which has lead to a bit of plot elements that you're not sure why they are there. But that isn't really that prevalent earlier in the series. For example I know HoC isn't most people's favorite book, but I think all the main plot lines develop and interweave pretty nicely.

A lot of it comes down to style too. Erikson writes in his own style. Some people like it, some people are violently opposed to it. Doesn't really make either of them right. As much as Kalbear might say characters are boring, well I don't see it, well at least in most of the cases. Every book has someone who is boring in it, Erikson imo included. Something I've wondered with books and characters is why we get involved in them. If a character is shown as lets say a man fighting for his way of life, to protect his country and those he holds dear, then how much do we really need to know as readers to sympathize with him? Do we need to know as much as we did about Ned Stark, or is it okay to have less info filled in with someone like Rake?

Or with someone like Jaime. For him to be depicted as someone who changes from a swordfirst brash arrogant man to what he became near the end of ASoS, what level of detail is necessary? Is there stuff in there that could be cut without changing the development of the character? The character of Baelor from Hedge Knight illustrates that to me. We really don't know much about him, and get relatively little screen time with him. But he is a powerful sympathetic character who we root for and lament when he dies. Finrod from Silmarillion similarily evokes that reaction in me, and he is a character whose development could probably fit into 3 pages from that book.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Every time a writer reaches some level of exposition all kind of readers try it. More readers also brings more naysayers, especially on forums. What is silly is the obstinacy. If you don't like the books, then read something else, as the market isn't so shallow to not present good alternatives. But do not pretend to be the ultimate judge and that your idea of quality is absolute.[/quote]Why not? In the end it's true. :P

My point isn't that I have the only reasonable basis for determining quality of a work; my point was that the argument that it's either too 'different' or the characters are too unsympathetic because they're So Bad or the plots are just Too Deep...that's not why I dislike the books. That's not why others have stated they dislike the books. If you believe that's the case, how on earth can you explain why they're on a ASoIAF message board talking about them?

And as far as talking about whether editing is a good choice or not...I really don't see a reasonable argument. You can like Erikson in spite of his rambling but I doubt very few people like him because of his rambling. That's definitely a different way to communicate, but it's not just commercial success that defines it as poor; it's a poor way to communicate. It is bad writing as defined by the entire consensus of english (and really, all) literature. I'm not even attempting to say whether it works or not; that's just how it's been for the last 400 years, and yes, writing plot points that meander about, resolve nothing and just seem to hang out is bad writing no matter who does it. Not because it's not commercial or because it doesn't appeal to Joe BarnesNNoble, but because it's just poor writing.

[quote]Oh? And who is this big bad that everyone is trying to bring down?[/quote]I think that'd be the Crippled God.
[quote]The big evil isn't evil. Some people brought him down not knowing what they were doing and it drove him mad. He's just trying to break free of prison, you know.[/quote]And destroy the world in doing so. Saying that he's not the big evil of the book because his motivations are slightly better than "MWAHAHAHAH I AM AWESOME" is kind of pointless. He might have great motivations for doing what he's doing (and honestly, they're not that bad, if a bit campy and odd) but at the end of the day he's still the big evil god who is trying to destroy the world and which other people, the protagonists, are trying to stop him.

[quote]As much as Kalbear might say characters are boring, well I don't see it, well at least in most of the cases. Every book has someone who is boring in it, Erikson imo included.[/quote]Actually, most of the 'characters are boring' argument comes from GotM, where everyone does appear to be largely a cypher. There are some good exceptions - DHG is my favorite of his works because the characters are very rich and interesting and horribly flawed - but in general it's a problem of his. The big difference is the cyphers, quite often, take center stage. And part of that is his writing style; there is very little internal dialogue that Erikson writes, and that creates a level of distance. Combine that with the generic names given to the soldiers and you get this placeholder vibe for a lot of the people.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1472821' date='Aug 8 2008, 17.01']And as far as talking about whether editing is a good choice or not...I really don't see a reasonable argument. You can like Erikson in spite of his rambling but I doubt very few people like him because of his rambling. That's definitely a different way to communicate, but it's not just commercial success that defines it as poor; it's a poor way to communicate. It is bad writing as defined by the entire consensus of english (and really, all) literature. I'm not even attempting to say whether it works or not; that's just how it's been for the last 400 years, and yes, writing plot points that meander about, resolve nothing and just seem to hang out is bad writing no matter who does it. Not because it's not commercial or because it doesn't appeal to Joe BarnesNNoble, but because it's just poor writing.[/quote]
Do not agree.

Even meaningfulness of plots is subjective. Or it really just would be the Crippled God and nothing else.

Erikson's "rambling" is what I find more meaningful. The themes of war in DG, the sacrifice, the struggle against gods, the sense of uncertainty. Those side plots about the dogs. If you remove the small characters and the themes, then it's just a chronicles of battles. It's the Silmarillion.

In fact Erikson loses me when it all comes down to some poor fight scenes like Kalam vs the Claw, or even Rake versus the demon in GotM. That's payoff, but it doesn't impress me anymore as I'm not 15 years old still.

I'm, honestly, there for the writing, the weird characters, the wit, some moving scenes, the thought and speculation that I'm willingly to put in every page. Makes me think and enjoy the journey. Without all that it would be tasteless.

I'm reading the novellas now and there are so many cool characters that just pass for a couple of pages. And I'm there craving for more because Erikson can make them intriguing in just a scene and some witty dialogue (like this [url="http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1753"]one line[/url], with some two characters that I found wonderful).

If you scroll my blog there are a few more quotes that kind of represent what I'm loving in the writing. That's also the long commentary about DG that should explain what I see into these books.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1472821' date='Aug 8 2008, 11.01']And destroy the world in doing so. Saying that he's not the big evil of the book because his motivations are slightly better than "MWAHAHAHAH I AM AWESOME" is kind of pointless.[/quote]

Pointless? Some even believe that the CG is our own Christian god because he was never supposed to be bad at all. IMHO his summoning was obviously meant to be a good thing, why would they summon a greater evil than what they were trying to defeat? So, in all probability, he is actually a "good" god but the summoners messed it up, leaving him in his current mad state.

Ok, I may be overeading it and seeing something that is not there, but so are other people. CG is only evil from the viewpoint of his enemies. It just so happens that the enemies are most of the people in the books. ;)

Honestly, they chained him up, what do these people deserve or expect? He is in the right to fight back. :P

[quote]He might have great motivations for doing what he's doing (and honestly, they're not that bad, if a bit campy and odd) but at the end of the day he's still the big evil god who is trying to destroy the world and which other people, the protagonists, are trying to stop him.[/quote]

You are viewing it through the old hero/villain lens where the big bad is defeated by the good guys. I believe this is totally opposite of the way things are in Malazan.

I don't particularly think that the protagonists are the "good" guys, frankly they are little better than the rest of the people around. SE has stated that the reason some publishers were put off was the lack of heroes in GotM...because, you know, we aren't actually supposed to root for anyone in particular as the hero.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Erikson's "rambling" is what I find more meaningful. The themes of war in DG, the sacrifice, the struggle against gods, the sense of uncertainty. Those side plots about the dogs. If you remove the small characters and the themes, then it's just a chronicles of battles. It's the Silmarillion.[/quote]That's not rambling. Talking about small characters can be fleshing out the story or the world they live in. Martin does this all the time. But it's very easy to have minor characters and plot points start going off and doing their own thing for no useful reason, and I think Erikson is a bit in love with his works too much and does this a bit too often.

[quote]Ok, I may be overeading it and seeing something that is not there, but so are other people. CG is only evil from the viewpoint of his enemies. It just so happens that the enemies are most of the people in the books[/quote]Really, are you having a problem with my ascribing 'evil' to a guy that wants to destroy the world? Is that the problem? If you like, substitute 'antagonist' for 'evil', since that's really the point. I don't really care about the morals of the story. I'm talking about the plot and how edgy and different it is. And no, having an insane god who wants to destroy the world as the antagonist is not what I'd call a new storyline as far as fantasy novels are concerned.

[Werthead]

On Bantam's website I found a link to an old press release announcing that the series had sold 250,000 copies in total. However, as the link didn't work any more there's no way to tell when that was issued.

[Gormenghast]

No idea how much it would be in the greater scale of things.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1472892' date='Aug 8 2008, 11.37']Really, are you having a problem with my ascribing 'evil' to a guy that wants to destroy the world? Is that the problem? If you like, substitute 'antagonist' for 'evil', since that's really the point.[/quote]

It is the point, isn't it?

[quote]I don't really care about the morals of the story.[/quote]

Lol um some people do.

[quote]I'm talking about the plot and how edgy and different it is. And no, having an insane god who wants to destroy the world as the antagonist is not what I'd call a new storyline as far as fantasy novels are concerned.[/quote]

Oh please, I already went through that point ages ago. There are no "new" plots. At all. There is no such thing.

My original point was simply that people expect your usual fantasy forumla here which is very basic - our heroes defeat the big bad. Malazan doesn't have this.

Firstly, there are no heroes in Malazan. Possibly some people, due to their expectations from reading other fantasy novels, will simply consider some characters are heroes but I don't think they are as all of the various empires or causes they have are pragmatic ones, not good (morally good) ones. Sha'ik rebels against the Malazans. The Malazans fight the rebels, who is in the right? Neither. The people are fighting for their freedom and independence while the Malazan empire generally does bring about a change for the better when they are in charge. Take your pick.

Secondly, the big bad isn't what most of them are fighting. Note that in the first book, the BBs are fighting *with* our bad guy and they deliberately released him. Rofl. They also have that creepy evil magician puppet. *shivers*

Thirdly, it is debatable that CG is an "evil" god, but whatever floats your boat. If you are more comfortable with black and white then by all means consider him your basic evil god. Pay no attention to motivation, morality or history. :P Just because *I* happen to think it's important doesn't mean that other people have to see it that way.

Sometimes the bad guy (Karsa) defeats the other bad guy (*cough* spoiler um the er guy with the magic sword that was undefeatable, those who read it know what I mean, those have not read it are not spoiled, I think as there are many magic swords, aye?). Some people think Karsa isn't the bad guy.;) Despite the rapes and the whole "I am going to destroy all of civilisation" thing. ;) That's the type of series this is lol although admittedly some things are quite absurd.

Now in your regular fantasy novel this would simply be "the thief and his friends the mage, ranger, swordsman and hot chick fight the big bad and win while finding romance and becoming better people." The thief actually becomes a worse person btw (theif to assasin can't be that good).

That was my original point, and really regardless of their being a "big evil guy" can you say that Malazan is your regular farmer/sheperd/apprentice goes on a quest and becomes king of everything type of book? Or the band of unlikely misfits become heroes type of book? :cheers: I grant that Karsa's storyline is somewhat cliche though, the whole barbarian thing he has going for him. :smileysex: I never liked him anyway so I don't care if his storyline is crap.