Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[polishgenius]

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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither excusing him nor expecting the Nascent to fix all the holes.

SPOILER: incosistencies

It's unlikely to fill the Barghast one, won't help with Fear, it won't help with Stonny, it may help with Karsa's personal timeline but doesn't do much for his daughters' (in fact if he does travel back in time it'll make it even worse.

It's just something to take into account when trying to order them- anything that happens within the Nascent is subject to screwy time.

[Shryke]

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.

I get the sense it's a combination of things.

Firstly, there's the "original story" with a bunch of intersecting plotlines. I agree with polishgenius that the problem here seems to be that while he had some idea of how they intersected, he hadn't worked out the nitty-gritty details enough. So these details clash now. In some cases, badly.

Compounding this is that he's pulling new ideas out that he's decided are cool and wants to use, and he's inserting these too. And all without a care for how these new stories intersect with the old ones or each other. So the whole thing becomes an even bigger mess.

Basically, I think it all comes back to discipline. He doesn't rewrite, he doesn't edit his own work much, he doesn't work to keep everything straight and he doesn't know when to hold back on a cool idea because sometimes that idea, no matter how cool, doesn't work in the context of the rest of the story.

And so we get a story that, while interesting, is full of inconsistencies.

[Gormenghast]

Basically, I think it all comes back to discipline. He doesn't rewrite, he doesn't edit his own work much, he doesn't work to keep everything straight and he doesn't know when to hold back on a cool idea because sometimes that idea, no matter how cool, doesn't work in the context of the rest of the story.

As far as I know the mistakes are between books, not within books.

So there's no rewriting that could fix that. If not rewriting and editing once the series is complete.

I don't think that "he doesn't care", it's just that mistakes in intricate works happen.

I was reading just now how Stephen King rewrote the early books in the Dark Tower to be more consistent, or how there were some minor mistakes in the rewriting of The Stand.

[Shryke]

As far as I know the mistakes are between books, not within books.

So there's no rewriting that could fix that. If not rewriting and editing once the series is complete.

I don't think that "he doesn't care", it's just that mistakes in intricate works happen.

I was reading just now how Stephen King rewrote the early books in the Dark Tower to be more consistent, or how there were some minor mistakes in the rewriting of The Stand.

Rewrites can happen before you publish. GRRM does it all the time, as do many authors.

Beyond that, planning is required for large series. Any author of a large fantasy series I've ever heard of has talked about having scads of notes to keep stuff straight and prevent the kind of fuck ups that permeate the Malazan series.

[End of Disc One]

[sologdin]

are between books, not within books.

if that's true, the fix for the second edition is to slap a different faux authorship onto each volume (kinda like how bilbo wrote the hobbit and the silmarillion, and frodo and sam wrote tLotR).

then any inconsistencies between volumes appear to be cleverly planned discrepencies, purposefully introduced by the author of the series to make the faux authors of each volume appear to be biased, mistaken, or dishonest--and by their conflicts generate an additional level of debate regarding what really happened in those books, anyway?

[RedEyedGhost]

As far as I know the mistakes are between books, not within books.

So there's no rewriting that could fix that. If not rewriting and editing once the series is complete.

:o

:sigh:

[Horza]

I'm a vegetarian between meals and a pacifist between wars.

[Herr Fick]

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.

Since Mr Lundin's secondary world does not and is not meant to closely resemble reality ("medieval" or otherwise), your critique is pointless. Many 'realistic' (that is: not wholly imaginary) properties of his world are starkly anachronistic insofar that they appear at the same time in one culture, while in reality they were specific to certain periods or cultures (Mr Lundin's partly 'medieval', partly modern image of Malazan warfare is certainly one of the most distinct anachronisms).

Now, the Malazan Empire's socio-philosophy, legal framework, politics, demographics, agriculture and general economy are not described in sufficient detail for us to infer anything decisive about the roots of the Empire's sexual egalitarianism (and I believe, that Mr Lundin himself has no idea about all that, too - as far as I know, he makes his case with the talent for magic, which occurs in men and women equally). But of course there are numerous economical, political and cultural factors conceivable (as well as the case in reality), which can support the establishment of mixed-sex-armies. And even although there are no reasons per se why female soldiers (in an industrialised war, where human sexual dimorphism is not a critical hindrance) should be an oddity, it seems to me that in the Malazan Book of the Fallen female soldiers form an (albeit significant) minority in the armed forces.

To lay one of his secondary world's social properties at the feet of Mr Lundin's supposed "political correctness" is itself a rather shallow critique derived from ideology (which is the case, too, with the amazon-review that another user linked to above).

Personally, I do not find Mr Lundin's secondary world at all believable and his prose at times annoying. Nevertheless, I have had considerable fun reading his Malazan-series so far.

[PetrusOctavianus]

Since Mr Lundin's secondary world does not and is not meant to closely resemble reality ("medieval" or otherwise), your critique is pointless. Many 'realistic' (that is: not wholly imaginary) properties of his world are starkly anachronistic insofar that they appear at the same time in one culture, while in reality they were specific to certain periods or cultures (Mr Lundin's partly 'medieval', partly modern image of Malazan warfare is certainly one of the most distinct anachronisms).

Now, the Malazan Empire's socio-philosophy, legal framework, politics, demographics, agriculture and general economy are not described in sufficient detail for us to infer anything decisive about the roots of the Empire's sexual egalitarianism (and I believe, that Mr Lundin himself has no idea about all that, too - as far as I know, he makes his case with the talent for magic, which occurs in men and women equally). But of course there are numerous economical, political and cultural factors conceivable (as well as the case in reality), which can support the establishment of mixed-sex-armies. And even although there are no reasons per se why female soldiers (in an industrialised war, where human sexual dimorphism is not a critical hindrance) should be an oddity, it seems to me that in the Malazan Book of the Fallen female soldiers form an (albeit significant) minority in the armed forces.

To lay one of his secondary world's social properties at the feet of Mr Lundin's supposed "political correctness" is itself a rather shallow critique derived from ideology (which is the case, too, with the amazon-review that another user linked to above).

Personally, I do not find Mr Lundin's secondary world at all believable and his prose at times annoying. Nevertheless, I have had considerable fun reading his Malazan-series so far.

Some good points. Maybe coed armies *is* a natural thing in Malazan or it is Erikson's PC shining through, but as someone else said "it's small potatoes". But since Erikson has a background as archeologist and and anthropoligist it was for me very disappointing how he is not able to convincingly portray the cultures of Malazan. It never feels *convincing*; it's on part with RPG source books, while Middle Earth and the Seven Kingdoms are much more like real history.

[Herr Fick]

But since Erikson has a background as archeologist and and anthropoligist it was for me very disappointing how he is not able to convincingly portray the cultures of Malazan. It never feels *convincing*; it's on part with RPG source books, while Middle Earth and the Seven Kingdoms are much more like real history.

I very much agree.

[Nerdanel]

I think Erikson's problem is that he doesn't take the time to differentiate the cultures from each other to a sufficient degree. One reason I liked Toll the Hounds is that it made more of an effort to describe Darujhistan, Black Coral, and a few other places, making them more real to the reader. Erikson is very much a plot-based author, and I like that, but his vast world also needs attention if he wants to get beyond the RPG sourcebook feel.

Seriously, for me all of those settlers vs. natives scenarios have started to blend together...

[Werthead]

Moved the Tolkien posts to the Tolkien thread ;)

[duchess of malfi]

I suppose if I had to comment here is that I really find Malazan to be a very uneven series in contrast to ASOIAF. At times I find Erikson to be enthralling - and then at other times I find him to be very tedious for hundreds of pages at a time (particularly in the last two books, RG and TTH). And the continuity and time line errors are really seriously irritating.

At times GRRM enthralls me, at times he pisses me off (as with the Red Wedding) - but he has thus far to ever actually bore me.

edited for typos

[Rain]

I suppose if I had to comment here is that I really find Malazan to be a very uneven series in contrast to ASOIAF. At times I find Erikson to be enthralling - and then at other times I find him to be very tedious for hundreds of pages at a time (particularly in the last two books, RG and TTH). And the continuity and time line errors are really seriously irritating.

At times GRRM enthralls me, at times he pisses me off (as with the Red Wedding) - but he has thus far to ever actually bore me.

edited for typos

The Red Wedding was awesome, they totally had it coming going against Tywin like that.

Back on topic... I am 226 pages into Gardens of the Moon and so far it is pretty legit, and from this thread I gather that it gets even better, so I am definitely pretty excited about this series so far.

[PetrusOctavianus]

The Red Wedding was awesome, they totally had it coming going against Tywin like that.

Back on topic... I am 226 pages into Gardens of the Moon and so far it is pretty legit, and from this thread I gather that it gets even better, so I am definitely pretty excited about this series so far.

Gardens have some good parts. The part with Kruppe and friends helping their noble friend get revenge on his wife, and the urban cloak and dagger stuff, was for me the most enjoyable part of the book.

[Iron Tusk]

i've only read gardens of the moon, but the impression i got from the book is that erikson writes like an anthropologist rather than an author. does that make any sense? regardless, i found gardens of the moon to be an extremely dry read and i highly doubt i'll continue on with the series.

that said, i thought the book was filled with wonderful ideas that were simply poorly executed (IMO) and i can see why this series is very popular, it's simply not for me.

[End of Disc One]

i've only read gardens of the moon, but the impression i got from the book is that erikson writes like an anthropologist rather than an author. does that make any sense? regardless, i found gardens of the moon to be an extremely dry read and i highly doubt i'll continue on with the series.

that said, i thought the book was filled with wonderful ideas that were simply poorly executed (IMO) and i can see why this series is very popular, it's simply not for me.

If your main problem was the writing, anyone will tell you that the writing in the first book is much different than in the rest of the series. It was written about 15 years before the rest.

[Iron Tusk]

different as in better? or different as in still dry but different? hmm. i have deadhouse gates at home, maybe i'll give it another shot.

i'm not done a song of ice and fire yet (half way through storm of swords atm). Maybe i'll give it another shot once I get through a feast for crows.

[oldnan]

All I can say is that if you read Malazan make sure you a notebook and pencil handy. I loved Gardens but so much is happening that it's easy to lose track as the series continues. I'm working my way through Deadhouse and I'm not liking it in the least but I know a re-read is in order...after I read Memories of Ice perhaps.