Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[Shryke]

I enjoyed that bit, but found the rest of HoC not all that good.

[Lord of Rhinos]

What's the consensus there (since I remember how the majority of the readers rank HoC at the bottom)? That Karsa's part is the good or the bad one of the book?

I think that what I read is that most complained that the sustained POV was a change of style that readers didn't like.

I don't know how HoC is typically ranked, but the beginning section normally has several charges leveled against it 1) It's the Karsa Orlong show, and many readers (particularly female readers it seems) despise Karsa 2) it is showing off a culture and dealing with characters we've never meant before, so why do we care? 3) it changes up Erikson's typical story telling style 4) it's one of the first sections to break the timeline

That stuff doesn't really both me though (aside from the timeline issues), t's probably my favorite 175 pages of Malazan.

I think HoC is probably disliked because the finale is very anticlimactic.

[Shryke]

How does HoC fuck up the timeline?

[Myshkin]

"Retconning" is a wonderful narrative technique when well executed and planned from the beginning. It means that a central pillar of your convictions has been undermined and acquires a totally new dimension. You've been cheated and have to reconsider the whole thing. The more you dig the less things are as simple as you thought. This is central in Erikson's way of plotting and it is extremely rewarding. Sometimes it's done superbly, sometimes it's flawed.

But again, I don't know other fictional forms that make that the central theme and do it better.

Now I'm sure you're a troll.

Continue manipulating my words.

I didn't say "retconning" in the traditional use you do of the word. I intend retconning when it was planned from the beginning. Now you focus of the negative connotation of a word I used while dismissing the reason why I used it in that context. I'm saying that what you consider retconning isn't always so.

It is retconning for the reader (since something you believed is proven wrong, so you have to go back and re-check), but it isn't for a writer who planned it from the start. It's just a revelation to shuffles the cards on the table once again. Do you have a better word that lacks the negative connotation?

Where did you get this definition of retconning? Apparently you have no idea what that word actually means. And now you're crying because we didn't understand what you meant when you used said word? Look it up. And stop blaming us for your lack of understanding.

[Gormenghast]

Where did you get this definition of retconning? Apparently you have no idea what that word actually means. And now you're crying because we didn't understand what you meant when you used said word? Look it up. And stop blaming us for your lack of understanding.

From that link:

Retconning also resembles the real-life occurrence of historical revisionism, where newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information inspires the rewriting of histories.

Related to this is the concept of shadow history or secret history, in which the events of a story occur within the bounds of already-established events (especially real-world historical events), revealing a different interpretation of (or motivation for) the events.

[Shryke]

No, sorry. Retconning is when you change your mind later but pretend it was always the new way.

Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction

[End of Disc One]

I think HoC is probably disliked because the finale is very anticlimactic.

I think a few reasons why it's not popular are:

1. People who don't expect the first fourth to focus on one character would get impatient and wonder when it would finally get back to the characters they know. If you expect it though, it's awesome.

2. So it's not as good as MoI, but what is? Again, expectations.

3. The central storyline with the Malazans is nothing special. But the rest of the storylines are fantastic. If you judge a book by its central storyline, HoC won't rank high for you.

4. Like you said, the anticlimax at the ending.

Basically, if you have reasonable expectations for HoC, you'll love it. It's an amazing book, and a welcome and important part of the series.

[Joanna vander Poele]

is when sister unknowingly slays sister and I'm left feeling...nothing...except a sense of anticlimactic disappointment - "that's it?". Any half decent writer could have written that scene so vastly much better.

Christ, that scene was a frigging goldmine and should have been one of the most memorable events from the goddamn series. What an utter waste of potential.

I recently got some friends into Erikson by saying, "It's the closest you'll ever read to anime in book form, except with less gender confusion comedy". Maybe a bit broad in comparison but I think it works.

Oh hush. There is so much great anime that is the absolute antithesis of Erikson. More apt would be D&D taken too seriously, or Warhammer. Now I'm going to wait until someone comes out and says "HDU I LOVE WARHAMMER".

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.

Absolutely small potatoes. Martin's world is a patriarchial one; Erikson's isn't. Historical precedent? Hey now, I've also heard there are no historical precedents for dragons and you seem to be swallowing that just fine.

Anyone know if there's any demographic differences is Erikson fans and GRRM fans?

This is just wild speculation on my part, but I feel that Erikson fans are generally younger than GRRM fans. I would probably have loved Erikson's books to death when I was 18, at which time I found all manner of RPG source material and endless tables of characters and weapons terribly exciting, but now that I've been 39 for several years, I find the cardboard characters, super heroes and deus ex machinas just too unconvincing.

I started GRRM when I was fourteen, and absolutely adored it. But in general I have noticed that ASOIAF readers tend to be older, and not to slag the good folk at Malazan Empire, the level of discourse seems to be higher (at least in the Misc. forums).

[delete this account pls]

I've never had a problem with the way women work in Erikson's world. There are some patriarchal societies (the Teblor, for example), and for the rest, I think the existence of magic and the number of female Ascendants and gods is more than enough to explain the rough equality.

[Werthead]

How does HoC fuck up the timeline?

Because Karsa had been hanging out with Leoman for a few years in DHG, but in HoC he didn't even get to Genabaris before Pale had fallen, at the maximum about 3-4 months before the events of DHG. Not a major problem, but it is a bit weird when we rejoin the main timeline later on and again it seems that Karsa has been there for years. Weird.

I think people are also forgetting the other reason people hate HoC: Erikson spends 250-odd pages setting up Karsa, who then plays a major role in three of the next four books as well (even in TTH, where he just wanders around looking bored and contributes nothing to the plot), only for it to turn out that Karsa's story is now concluded and will be finished by Erikson in 6-odd years time in a separate series.

Maybe Karsa pops back in DoD or TCG to help with the final conclusion to the story, otherwise I'm not sure what his purpose in the MBF core series is. If it was purely to set up this sequel trilogy and his role in the MBF itself was done at the end of RG, I am unsure why we spent so much time following him around in TTH as well when he did jack shit and that book was badly overlong and needed urgent pruning (to the tune of about 400 pages).

[Black Dow]

I've never had a problem with the way women work in Erikson's world. There are some patriarchal societies (the Teblor, for example), and for the rest, I think the existence of magic and the number of female Ascendants and gods is more than enough to explain the rough equality.

I can understand political equality or even matriarchy and I can also understand how women could be mages of equal or even greater power than men. What puzzles me are all of the women warriors. I suppose a fantasy writer has a great deal of latitude to deviate from the rules of planet Earth and that's why we see dragons, wizards, giants, and DarkLords in fantasy novels. And I suppose a fantasy author could credibly create a world in which women are, on average, as physically strong as men, and the author could also create a medieval-technology level world the nonetheless has such a problem with overpopulation to make women expendable enough to send off to battle. Absent a world in which such things are explained, an abundance of women warriors in a fantasy world at a medieval technology level is indeed a bit puzzling.

To be fair to Erikson, it's quite possible that he does have such an explanation. I had to do a lot of speedreading through the first book to force myself to finish it, and, while I didn't exactly completely hate that book, I did hate it enough to avoid ever trying to read any others.

[Lord of Rhinos]

How does HoC fuck up the timeline?

The prologue claims Trull's chaining happened in 1139. Lots of people wondered how Trull could possibly survive that long being chained to a wall. Erikson later mentioned that the date should have been 1159. Karsa starts his journey in 1159, which only takes a few weeks and yet the Malazans mention Pale has just fallen (which happened in 1163). This flows better as Midnight Tides supposedly takes place in 1159 and Karsa's crossover with characters from Midnight Tides works much better if events happen in 1163. Except of course, Karsa's position with Shaik seems to have been going on for a while and if the 1163 date is correct he can't have been with Shaik for more than a few months at the max. In Deadhouse Gates, Leoman claims that Karsa is 17 years old and has killed 42 people. In HoC Karsa is 80 years old and I'm pretty sure has killed far more than 42 people. In Toll the Hounds some characters are introduced that can't possibly be as old as the book claims due to the events in HoC.

[Shryke]

Best not to think to hard about it I guess.

The funny part is, absent alot of the things like Karsa's journey and some of the retcons, the overall story is shaping up to be kinda interesting.

It seems the ultimate aim of the whole thing is the Bonehunters, sort of the last gasp of the Malazan Empire, heading into the far reaches of the world to stop something horrible.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

That's true, although I don't know how much of a "last gasp" it is - that remains to be seen from ICE's books, which will follow the divergent history of the Malazan Empire.

SPOILER: RotCG and general rant

Although I was super pissed that ICE so casually killed Laseen, and put that asshole Mallick Rel up as Emperor. I mean, seriously? After the whole plotline of him being such a dickhole? Don't get me started on Korbolo Dom. On a related note, I find it incredibly hard to believe that a character who is shown to be as intelligent, resourceful, and downright badass (in terms of fighting and magical prowess as well as politically) as Laseen was able to get herself nicely trapped between a rock and a hard place by Rel and co.

Also, apparently the next ICE book is called "Stoneblade" or "Stonesword" or something, so that could be about Karsa. Be interesting to see how ICE writes him.

[Shryke]

No, the next ICE book is Stonewielder and is about that renegade Malazan General from RotCG named Greymane. It will take place on Korelri.

Also:

SPOILER: answer to spoiler above

Mallick Rel, while a complete dickhole, is a very well connected one.

As for Laseen, while intelligent and resourceful, she lacks allies, which was her problem. She relied on the wrong people, and was actually set up to take them down. In the end, you notice, it's the enemy she had no idea of and never saw coming who got her.

Personally, I still think the Malazan Empire will sort of fall apart. I don't know, seems more poetic that way I guess. Their last great army takes off to the edge of the world to stop some unspeakable evil and the Empire isn't even around to return to afterwords.

Although, from the foreshadowing in HoC, I think the Bonehunters will return to what's left of the Empire to kick ass and take names.

[polishgenius]

You get some clues to the Empire's future by reading the chapter headings, particularly in some of the earlier books.

As for the timeline, HoC is nothing compared to the damage wreaked on it by Reaper's Gale and Toll the Hounds:

SPOILER: those two books

In RG you get several thousand Barghast apparently arriving in Lether years before they left Genebackis, and Fear and his gang spend several years walking at best a couple of thousand miles, probably less. And then Toll the Hounds really goes to town. I can't even remember half of it - I know Karsa's daughters are too old even if you stretch his journey to the fullest limit you can and age them by human standards - which you shouldn't, because Teblor age slowly. And Stonny's kid is also way too old.

Remember, the timeline is not important. Things happen, and then other things happen... The timeline is not important.

[Werthead]

Remember, the timeline is not important. Things happen, and then other things happen... The timeline is not important.

Unless you care about story logic or coherence or the thing making any sense. It's not just one or two things tangential to the storyline, it's the simple sequence of event A happening after B that Erikson has totally fucked up which is pretty elementary.

[polishgenius]

Oh I know. I'm not stating my own preferences, it's the official authorial position and pending some editing in future editions it's pretty necessary to accept, right now, that the timeline is irredeemably fucked up and some things simply didn't happen when Erikson says they did (and any and all dates stated are simply to be ignored).

I think, pretty simply, Erikson has several threads in his head which have a certain order but not even a basic cross-section of how they relate to each other - hence when the Barghast crossed from the Genebackis thread to the Lether thread they travelled in time.

Of course, unexplained also is the Nascent, which Erikson has hinted

SPOILER: Author's word on rest of series

has time-travel properties.

[Werthead]

Of course, unexplained also is the Nascent, which Erikson has hinted

SPOILER: Author's word on rest of series

has time-travel properties.

Which would have been more impressive if someone had said that in Book 2 and we didn't have to wait until RotCG which is I believe the first time someone comes out and says, "Time is really, really werid in the Nascent."

Even the Nascent doesn't explain the fuck-up with Stonny's kid though. That was just a really bizarre mistake to make.

[kungtotte]

To me it seems as though Erikson keeps coming up with plots and stories he thinks are cool, that are all set in this role-playing setting of his, and he just writes them into the Malazan Book of the Fallen without any regard to internal consistency, time-lines, plot-holes and so on.

So it all makes sense from his perspective as they're all just cool stories taking place in this setting, rather than plots in a book that are supposed to fit together.