Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[Kalbear]

Yeah, gormenghast is arguing that the whole story is basically totally without sides, the PoVs are impartial, etc.

Which is utter bullshit.

[Gormenghast]

Martin's problem is that he's a perfectionist and tends to re-write chapters multiple times. This is in contrast to Erikson, who writes the first draft and then sends it to his editors (by own admission). Hence Martin's slow progress; hence Erikson's continuity problems, among many many others.

Thus, we have one author who takes his sweet time to make the best book possible (I, for one, think AFFC is fine, given it is a fall-out book from the first trilogy) and another author who writes 300k+ word books every year and certainly doesn't take his time to flesh out/rewrite/attempt to make his books subtantially better - and the main criticisms of Malazan fans tend to stem from books 5/6 through 8.

Yep, it's the same I said. They are people and all they can do is try to do their best.

Erikson himself admits that his relentless pacing is exhausting him. Without a doubt all the inconsistencies, loose threads and timeline problems could be resolved if he had more time to go back and revise (for example I heard that up to Reaper's Gale he had Esslemont checking consistency, then Esslemont was busy with his own project and so what Erikson wrote next suffered). He also has a contract to deliver those ten books in that timeframe. It would be also interesting if after finishing the series he would spend time to go through all he wrote and revise it. There's a lot of stuff in there that could be pushed closer to its true potential.

But at the same time I think that this approach is going to pay off more than Martin's approach (only speculating here as no one knows how both series will end). Erikson stays focused on what he does and will probably stay more faithful to his original plan with his series. When instead you sprawl an ambitious project across twenty years then it's almost impossible to keep control.

I fear that there weren't alternatives to realize what Erikson is doing. Human alternatives.

What Erikson is writing is different from everything else within or outside the genre. Whenever there will be a writer that tries that and is more successful at doing it, then I'll read those books and praise them. For now I enjoy Erikson with all his mistakes.

[PetrusOctavianus]

Another difference between Malazan and ASOIAF is how women are portrayed.

ASOIAF is much the more realistic, where only women with exceptional talents (like Brienne and Arya) and those functioning as a noble's eldest son (like Asha) have much hope of escaping the traditional "medival" role of women.

While Malazan is partly ruined by Erikson's political correctness, when both genders can become soldiers. This is even made worse by Erikson's background as archelogist and anthroplogist. He *really* should know better. AFAIK there is *no* historical precedent whatsoever to coed (I think that's the correct word?) armies.

Oh, and GRRM looks like a wise, old sage, while Erikson...well...doesn't.

[Guy Kilmore]

Hold on, I just realised having read fionwe's post up there- this guy is actually arguing that in Erikson world, there isn't a side we're supposed to root for?

That was the case in GotM, more or less, but after that pretty much only MT fits the bill.

So you finished what has been published of Erikson's series? Or is this based on your summary of other people's interpretation and work?

ETA: You are correct Errant Bard, I glanced through too fast. My apologies polishgenius.

[Errant Bard]

So you finished what has been published of Erikson's series? Or is this based on your summary of other people's interpretation and work?

Uh, wait, aren't confusing Polishgenius and Gormenghast here?

[Gormenghast]

Yeah, gormenghast is arguing that the whole story is basically totally without sides, the PoVs are impartial, etc.

Which is utter bullshit.

The story in A Game of Thrones is definitely one-sided since we got POVs from one side: Ned, Catelyn, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Jon. Winterfell is the reader's lens on this world.

But all this debate is going in a direction that is far from what I was saying. I only said that the types of characters Martin uses are well written, but not original. Well characterized, but still archetypes in all their facets. The book sticks to a well written, but also well defined standard and type of plotting. These are ingredients that make a "classic", since you need situations that can resound with the reader and recall a tradition of narrative. Martin is the voice of a certain narrative tradition. He's a great storyteller but lacks his own voice or originality (those who consider him original are those who compare him to Tolkien, when it's obvious that Tolkien is not what inspired Martin and that Martin's influences are external to the fantasy genre).

I said that from my point of view what he does is entertaining, but not interesting. And since I recognize typical structures used to pull heart strings, even the emotional side doesn't work for me.

Erikson's approach is more left-brained. He engages more the logic than relying on emotional feedback. It is in a way more authentic as "feelings" are always easier to twist and use for a purpose.

The end of the Chain of Dogs or the death of WJ weren't the highest points for me. The dialogue with Duiker when he talks about the "sleight of hand", or even the culmination of Iktovian's plot were stronger. Whenever Erikson went for a "moral" I felt him more authentic and less trite than what Martin does with his characters.

[Eurytus]

The story in A Game of Thrones is definitely one-sided since we got POVs from one side: Ned, Catelyn, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Jon. Winterfell is the reader's lens on this world.

Apart from Tyrion and Daenerys of course.

[Gormenghast]

Let's make a daring comparison.

Lost, the TV series, has like the characters of Martin and the plot of Erikson. The characters are relatively well done, their motivations well realized. The plot is ambitious, intricate, convoluted and far reaching. It's also flawed like the one of Erikson. Sometimes it comes out exceptionally, sometimes it fails.

I watch Lost entirely for the plot. I do not really care if one survives or not or who gets Kate in the end. I like Sawyer, but I don't tear my hair after him. So often the characters in Lost make me groan (like the ridiculous brawl between Sawyer and Jack in the last episode).

I stay for the plot, the reversal, how sometimes things come together exceptionally well. But too often the characters are full on hollywood writing. It's way too obvious that the show is written by americans as that style is strictly codified and recognizable. Characters' drama in typical hollywood fashion goes a bit over my head.

[Gormenghast]

Apart from Tyrion and Daenerys of course.

Not in my opinion.

Dany is a plot thread in book 1 that exists only because it will converge in book 2. It's so external and with so little links that it could be cut entirely as it only marginally touches the main plot in the first book.

Tyrion doesn't represent the "other side". There's as much distance from one as from the other. He's there without having much choice so he can't represent anyone.

[Kalbear]

\

Tyrion doesn't represent the "other side". There's as much distance from one as from the other. He's there without having much choice so he can't represent anyone.

I'm sure that the PoVs of Theon, Cersei, and Jaime are similarly discolored. Oooh, and Davos too, can't forget him.

I'm going to go out on a limb and state that the only way the sides would ever work for Gormenghast is if there was an Other PoV. And even then, he'd probably say that the Other was emo or an outcast or something along those lines.

[Eurytus]

Not in my opinion.

Dany is a plot thread in book 1 that exists only because it will converge in book 2. It's so external and with so little links that it could be cut entirely as it only marginally touches the main plot in the first book.

Tyrion doesn't represent the "other side". There's as much distance from one as from the other. He's there without having much choice so he can't represent anyone.

Your opinion is totally irrelevant. Neither POV is a Winterfell one ergo the POVs are not one sided.

Really, if you're going to try and argue points having only read one book at least try and read it cover to cover.

[Myshkin]

What Erikson is writing is different from everything else within or outside the genre. Whenever there will be a writer that tries that and is more successful at doing it, then I'll read those books and praise them. For now I enjoy Erikson with all his mistakes.

You're joking, right? Erikson is not doing anything "new" or "fresh". I believe even Erikson admitted that he wrong when he said he was doing something new. Just because you haven't read anything like it before, doesn't mean that nothing else like it exists. Man, hardcore Erikson fanboys are starting to sound more and more like hardcore Goodkind fanboys.

[Gormenghast]

Then point me at a fantasy work with intricate plotting, foreshadowing, misdirection and reversal similar to Erikson's series. I'd gladly read it.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Have you read Gene Wolfe? He does a lot of the stuff that you seem to like in Erikson, with the difference that he actually does it well.

[Myshkin]

Then point me at a fantasy work with intricate plotting, foreshadowing, misdirection and reversal similar to Erikson's series. I'd gladly read it.

Do you really believe that nobody else does this? Do you really think nobody else has done what Erikson has done throughout the course of written history? Please. You need to read more.

Off the top of my head, series similar to MBotF:

The Black Company by Glen Cook

Dragonlance by various

Forgotten Realms by various

Off the top of my head, series that have all the criteria listed above (with much better execution):

A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin

Prince of Nothing by R. Scott Bakker

The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe

And many, many, many more.

Furthermore, I don't believe Erikson has intricate plotting, so much as a lack of understanding as to how a story is constructed. I don't believe he does foreshadowing, misdirection, or reversals, so much as retconning.

[Shryke]

I don't believe he does foreshadowing, misdirection, or reversals, so much as retconning.

Aye. There's far too many obvious retcons in the series. For every element he planned out in advance, it seems like there's another where he wanted something to be a certain way in the book he was writing right now and not the way he wrote it in the previous book, so he retconned the shit of it.

The more I read Malazan, the more I come to believe Erikson has alot of talent, but none of the discipline necessary to be a really good writer.

[polishgenius]

So you finished what has been published of Erikson's series? Or is this based on your summary of other people's interpretation and work?

I'm assuming you confused me with Gormenghast, but in case you didn't, I read TtH on release date (well, a day or so after. When I could afford it). The only Malazan books I haven't read are Erikson's novellas.

In other words, despite my criticism of Erikson, I am a hardcore Malazan fanboy, and Myshkin, please don't lump us all in with one troll/lunatic. :(

[Myshkin]

In other words, despite my criticism of Erikson, I am a hardcore Malazan fanboy, and Myshkin, please don't lump us all in with one troll/lunatic. :(

Oh Polish, you know I'd never lump you in with Gormenghast. When I said hardcore fanboys (or fangirls), I meant those who strongly believe that Erikson is the greatest writer who ever lived, those who make excuses for every complaint against Erikson, those who call you stupid for not liking Erikson. You are none of those things. I come off as harsh toward Erikson and MBotF, but I don't judge people poorly for liking them. I can see their appeal. I judge people poorly for claiming that they are the height of world literature, for claiming that Erikson is doing something no author, from Homer to Rushdie, has ever done before.

[Black Dow]

Another difference between Malazan and ASOIAF is how women are portrayed.

ASOIAF is much the more realistic, where only women with exceptional talents (like Brienne and Arya) and those functioning as a noble's eldest son (like Asha) have much hope of escaping the traditional "medival" role of women.

While Malazan is partly ruined by Erikson's political correctness, when both genders can become soldiers. This is even made worse by Erikson's background as archelogist and anthroplogist. He *really* should know better. AFAIK there is *no* historical precedent whatsoever to coed (I think that's the correct word?) armies.

Oh, and GRRM looks like a wise, old sage, while Erikson...well...doesn't.

Yes. That shit is annoying as all hell. Lynch is even worse in that respect. However, compared to Erikson's other literary bumblings, this bit of PC is small potatoes indeed.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Yes, the attention...? Don't stop there!

Oops, I was actually going to place the points from the first of those two posts there, but instead I ended up breaking them apart.