Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[Werthead]

GotM was written about 8 years before DHG, but yes, a fair bit before.

Personally I always thought GotM was quite representative of the writing in the other MBF books (and superior to the last two, perhaps the last four, books), the only difference with the others is that you get used to it by the time you reach them.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Personally I always thought GotM was quite representative of the writing in the other MBF books (and superior to the last two, perhaps the last four, books), the only difference with the others is that you get used to it by the time you reach them.

This.

The main difference in writing styles, to me, is that in GotM, Erikson hasn't quite settled into his fast camera-angle POV switching yet. Pages and pages are still spent on single POVs, something that becomes increasingly rare as the series goes on.

[polishgenius]

The main change isn't in writing style but his approach to the genre- he drops a few things that are something along the line of fantasy convention without explanation, like the assassin god being a bastard or Quick Ben having to shout ponderous and pretentious phrases to cast spells.

[Gormenghast]

Personally I always thought GotM was quite representative of the writing in the other MBF books (and superior to the last two, perhaps the last four, books), the only difference with the others is that you get used to it by the time you reach them.

I won't get again in the discussion but your revisionism is becoming just unbelievable.

Again, it's all a matter of taste and preference, but saying that the writing in the first book is the same of the writing of the other books is plain wrong.

I'm not saying plotting, characters, ideas and so on. Just the writing. If you think the writing is the same then I can't even believe anymore that you are being honest here.

I started reading Deadhouse Gates a day after the end of Gardens of the Moon and the difference was immense.

[End of Disc One]

Yeah I'm actually with Gormenghast on this one. GotM is incredibly dense and fast paced, that if you let your mind wander of for just a couple of sentences, you're bound to miss something. The transition in DG is immense, where SE actually takes a little bit of time to assess the situation and let you get comfortable. Fast forward to books 5, 7, and 8 where you get philosophical debates. This "filler" is a huge contrast from GotM, where every paragraph serves to further the story.

[Gormenghast]

Btw, on the other side I also think that if one hates the first book he should probably stop there.

Despite the many, many cases of readers who started enjoying Erikson after the second or third and become fans. It happens, but I wouldn't recommend it.

[polishgenius]

Yeah I'm actually with Gormenghast on this one. GotM is incredibly dense and fast paced, that if you let your mind wander of for just a couple of sentences, you're bound to miss something. The transition in DG is immense, where SE actually takes a little bit of time to assess the situation and let you get comfortable. Fast forward to books 5, 7, and 8 where you get philosophical debates. This "filler" is a huge contrast from GotM, where every paragraph serves to further the story.

I'd say it's more a question of refinement than outright change though. The prose and structure are nigh-on identical, and all the books are still fast-paced with little exposition. In fact I'd say that the only real difference in terms of understanding between the beginning of GotM and DG is that in the latter you already have some grounding in the world- the second time I read GotM it all seemed a lot less hectic for precisely that reason.

[Caligula_K]

I'd say it's more a question of refinement than outright change though. The prose and structure are nigh-on identical, and all the books are still fast-paced with little exposition. In fact I'd say that the only real difference in terms of understanding between the beginning of GotM and DG is that in the latter you already have some grounding in the world- the second time I read GotM it all seemed a lot less hectic for precisely that reason.

I disagree with this. The books have become slower and slower paced since Deadhouse Gates- generally, the pattern now is:

Part I: Set up the story (with lots of exposition), travelogues begin

Part II: Continue setting up the story (at the end of Part II, a little bit of action is allowed to happen, but it doesn't matter much), continue travelogues

Part III: Set up the story (repeating the exposition from Parts I and II over... and over... and over...), continue travelogues

Part IV: Plot progression, convergence, climax, travelers reach their destination.

This is most extreme in Toll the Hounds, but it's been becoming worse and worse since Midnight Tides, the last really good book in the series. I think Erikson's major problem these days (and a lot have developed over the past few books) is that he needs to have his huge convergence at the end, where all characters meet up and explode things for a while, so he makes nothing happen for the rest of the book, because most plot progress is tied to these convergences. And these convergences by now feel pretty artificial; oh, what a coincidence, all these characters who were traveling from different places happened to arrive at the site of the climax at the same time. It's too bad, because in DG he didn't follow this pattern and gave us possibly the best climax of the series; since then it's all been the same.

[Gormenghast]

I'd say it's more a question of refinement than outright change though. The prose and structure are nigh-on identical, and all the books are still fast-paced with little exposition.

DG has much better prose, structure and exposition. Still the same writer, but a significant step in overall quality.

I can't think of any other writer in the genre who showed more objective progress in the writing between books.

[Werthead]

Again, it's all a matter of taste and preference, but saying that the writing in the first book is the same of the writing of the other books is plain wrong.

Possibly. In many ways, it is superior.

I started reading Deadhouse Gates a day after the end of Gardens of the Moon and the difference was immense.

Indeed, the slower and more turgid pace was not a pleasent experience. Luckily, the Chain of Dogs storyline was very good and picked the book right up, at least until the annoying ending.

I won't get again in the discussion but your revisionism is becoming just unbelievable.

Sorry, I'm being lectured to on my opinions on this series by someone who hasn't read the damn thing?

We'll talk again when you know what the hell you are blathering about.

[polishgenius]

Still the same writer, but a significant step in overall quality.

Exactly. Change in quality, not in style. He's doing the same things, just better.

I disagree with this. The books have become slower and slower paced since Deadhouse Gates

I wouldn't disagree that they're slower but it's a fairly gradual change as you read along and I was referring specifically to the change between GotM and DG.

When I said 'all' I should have said 'apart from Toll the Hounds'- for me, by any other standards all the other books are still quick paced, if unevenly compared to the first few, but Toll the Hounds was a non-event for large parts.

[kuenjato]

GotM was written about 8 years before DHG, but yes, a fair bit before.

Personally I always thought GotM was quite representative of the writing in the other MBF books (and superior to the last two, perhaps the last four, books), the only difference with the others is that you get used to it by the time you reach them.

Werthead's assertion, Gorm, was that the writing in GotM is superior to the last two (and perhaps four) books of the series, not DH or MoI.

[Werthead]

Gormenghast, I've had enough of your borderline trolling on this thread. Insulting and flaming fellow posters and calling them liars is not a good idea under any circumstances, let alone doing it to a moderator. Continue, and I will recommend that you are temp-banned from the forum.

Is that clear?

[Werthead]

Yes, and I can do it again as well.

You want to disagree with people's opinions, that is up to you. If you want to bellow on in a holier-than-thou, my-opinion-is-FACT-and-the-rest-of-you-are-morons manner, go do it somewhere else.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I'd say it's more a question of refinement than outright change though. The prose and structure are nigh-on identical, and all the books are still fast-paced with little exposition. In fact I'd say that the only real difference in terms of understanding between the beginning of GotM and DG is that in the latter you already have some grounding in the world- the second time I read GotM it all seemed a lot less hectic for precisely that reason.

I agree with this. His style changes a bit, but mostly in quality, not structure.

I won't get again in the discussion but your revisionism is becoming just unbelievable.

Again, it's all a matter of taste and preference, but saying that the writing in the first book is the same of the writing of the other books is plain wrong.

I'm not saying plotting, characters, ideas and so on. Just the writing. If you think the writing is the same then I can't even believe anymore that you are being honest here.

I started reading Deadhouse Gates a day after the end of Gardens of the Moon and the difference was immense.

You're not only an idiot, you're an offensive one.

DG is much slower, but I thought that actual style was roughly the same. Better prose, perhaps, but mucchhhh slower.

I'm also with kuenjato here; until you've read the whole series, you can't even begin to think that you're qualified to contest the judgment of Wert, myself, or anyone else who has read the whole thing.

[Nerdanel]

The thing about Toll the Hounds was that while the one big thing that everyone was expecting did not happen, several others did.

SPOILER: Toll the Hounds

The God of Death dies and his position is left open! Anomander Rake dies! Dragnipur is broken! Mother Dark reconciles with the Tiste Andii!

Also, the whole Dying God problem was introduced and solved within the volume, and some less globally-important subplots likewise.

But that's not to say Toll the Hounds didn't have some great quiet scenes. For example, the book made Kallor suddenly one of my favorite characters. I was surprised by how funny he could be and that he had more character depth than we had previously seen.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, but all of those things happened at the end, and they didn't really have a great deal to do with the plot of the book that'd gone before.

SPOILER: Toll

The Bridgeburner veteran and Crokus stuff is basically irrelevant to the ending, the Dying God part was neither here nor there either with the rest of the book nor the series at large, and apart from accompany Dassem Karsa basically does fuck all.

Kallor was awesome though.