Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[VarysTheSpider]

I'd recommend them on the basis that they are superior to most fantasy books I've read and lots of people love them. I don't rate it higher tho. I really liked a few of the books, but the 6th one was a real grind to get through and I'm not sure I'll ever finish it. It definitely has its moments, however.

Gormenghast - IMHO, there is [i]slightly[/i] more to being a writer than keeping to a deadline.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1561673' date='Oct 20 2008, 19.45']Gormenghast - IMHO, there is [i]slightly[/i] more to being a writer than keeping to a deadline.[/quote]
Yes, but quality of writing is an opinion, "not writing" is not.

You don't know if Erikson would be a better writer if he worked on a book for longer. Maybe he's satisfied with what he is doing, it's a personal work. I said that Martin has more to demonstrate. He hasn't written a whole lot lately, his series seems in a swamp and the last book wasn't so well received.

Erikson did his thing and now it's up to the readers to like it or criticize it. Martin's one instead is at risk.

It's not a matter of "speed" or "time", it's a matter of actually finishing the thing or not. If Martin succeeds even if he takes 10 more years, great.

He simply has more to demonstrate right now.

[Iskaral Pust]

I think Werthead said it best, although I never saw Malazan over-taking ASOIAF. The writing just isn't good enough.

Malazan offers some tantalizing, frustrating, incoherent glimpses of an imagined world of fantastic scope and intricacy. If you ever wished that Martin wrote more about the Others, the Children of the Forest, the Long Night, etc. then you might enjoy Malazan a lot.

If you are in any way OCD about the quality/structure/integrity/consistency of prose, then it might be a bit of a challenge for you.

I read the first five books shortly after my son was born. Sleep deprivation led to poor memory retention, so I need to re-read before continuing with the series. I'll post again if I feel very different on the second pass through.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1561684' date='Oct 20 2008, 18.55']You don't know if Erikson would be a better writer if he worked on a book for longer. Maybe he's satisfied with what he is doing, it's a personal work. I said that Martin has more to demonstrate. He hasn't written a whole lot lately, his series seems in a swamp and the last book wasn't so well received.[/quote]


Well, I am of course guessing, but his own admission is that he finds it a strain to write a book a year and will be winding that down once the ten books of the main series are done. It seems a logical extrapolation, given also the flaws that are there, that more time to polish might make them better.

[Ashara]

I frankly find Malazan boring, boring and even more boring. I managed the first book, and didn't like it with the exception of 1 character. I gave up on the second book about half-way in because it was so boring and pointless. I tried the third book because that's where my favorite character from the first was said to return, but I couldn't remember why I liked him to start with, and the book was boring... So, I gave up on Malazan after that.

It's not that I mind different stories in the same setting and various characters. It's just that the story is boring and there are no appealing characters in the book at all for me.

I'd suggest checking out Lynch or Abercrombie instead. :)

[Balefont]

[quote name='Ser Barry' post='1561260' date='Oct 20 2008, 04.49']It is only more complex in the same way that Pokemon is more complex than chess.[/quote]

:lol:

I read GotM and was very glad it only cost me $6 for the hardcover. I've been told by some close acquaintances that I should continue and that it gets better. Then I read people's dissatisfaction with the more recent books and think to myself, "Why waste my time if it gets better only to get worse?"

There are too many other books I want to read first. If I ever get caught up, maybe I'll continue with the series.

[VarysTheSpider]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1561684' date='Oct 20 2008, 18.55']Yes, but quality of writing is an opinion, "not writing" is not.[/quote]
I think you're confusing 'not writing' with 'not publishing'. Is your opinion that it's better to publish something than nothing? I'd disagree with that. Strongly.

[Tarapas Amran]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1561898' date='Oct 20 2008, 22.49']I think you're confusing 'not writing' with 'not publishing'. Is your opinion that it's better to publish something than nothing? I'd disagree with that. Strongly.[/quote]

While I agree with your statment, I do think it's better to publish fast than to publish slowly and worser.

[Benjen Stark]

MBotF is the sort of thing you might get if you took Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel) and Stan Lee (X-Men, Spiderman, etc.) and forced them to collaborate using the Dungeon's and Dragons Monster Manual as their starting source material. :lol:

Personally, I find the worldbuilding interesting enough to forgive a lot of other flaws. Erickson bothers to ask why so and so is in such and such a place and the implications of that for the world. Most authors can't seem to think that broadly. However, instead of using that breadth of perspective to moderate the impacts of any given group of people and their damage to the world around them, he instead makes almost every conflict appear to verge on Armageddon and shake up the world in general. The element of time in the setting is very significant, and stuff that happened thousands of years ago matters to the non-human races. Yet, the conflict of different elements sometimes looks like the author really did pull out dice and roll them to see who won. Most of the books have plotlines that are very interesting combined with plotlines that bore the hell out of me. For as important as time is, there are a lot of thematic elements that make no sense at all, timeline wise. See Karsa Orlong.

[i]Karsa Orlong is the crazed love child of Conan the Barbarian and Hercules. I sort of discount him when I think about the setting. People who have seen his handiwork in the setting pretty much hint that he is a demigod.[/i]

In contrast, GRRM lovingly crafts his tale to direct it to intended points along the path, only changing things when the characters require it. I honestly get the feeling that Erickson fully intends to kill as many of these characters as possible before the story ends and tries to avoid getting too attached to them. (Hence it being called Book of the Fallen.)

[Padraig]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1561662' date='Oct 20 2008, 18.26']We know that Erikson isn't scared of finishing what he started.[/quote]
Kind of. Sort of. Depends on how you view all the other Malazan books that will be written. :)

GRRM would love to finish what he has started. Most authors would. Its just writing the book properly.

[quote]While I agree with your statment, I do think it's better to publish fast than to publish slowly and worser.[/quote]
Obviously. If only we could agree on what was worse.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1561898' date='Oct 20 2008, 22.49']Is your opinion that it's better to publish something than nothing? I'd disagree with that. Strongly.[/quote]
Once you publish it's up to the readers to buy or not. You aren't forced to read books you don't like, nor you are meant to decide for everyone what's worth publishing or not.

On the other side "not publishing" is a wonderful way to claim what a wonderful writer you are, since you can't be proven wrong.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='Benjen Stark' post='1561925' date='Oct 20 2008, 22.12']I honestly get the feeling that Erickson fully intends to kill as many of these characters as possible before the story ends and tries to avoid getting too attached to them. (Hence it being called Book of the Fallen.)[/quote]

I struggle to see how someone who's read the books can have come to the conclusion.

SPOILER: The whole series, I suppose

The single most infruriating flaw in Erikson's work is his inability to let the dead stay bloody well dead. Many a moving death scene (and he is good at them) has been ruined by the character popping up in later books

.

[Serious Callers Only]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1561990' date='Oct 20 2008, 23.06']Once you publish it's up to the readers to buy or not. You aren't forced to read books you don't like, nor you are meant to decide for everyone what's worth publishing or not.

On the other side "not publishing" is a wonderful way to claim what a wonderful writer you are, since you can't be proven wrong.[/quote]

Ridiculous assertion. If Erickson continues writing 1000 more books with his current skill level - he will still never reach the knees of ASoS.

[Werthead]

[quote]Well, they are the two dominant and most ambitious series going on in the genre.[/quote]

Not even close. In terms of critical acclaim? Erikson pretty uniformly gets bad print and critical reviews. Sales? His sales are small compared to many other epic fantasy authors. Erikson's name isn't very well-known at all outside of SF&F review sites with an epic fantasy slant to them, to be honest.

In critical terms, if it is possible to find a consensus, the slugging match would probably be between GRRM and maybe Bakker, whilst in terms of sales neither of them nor Erikson are in the conversation at all. And Jordan, despite the lack of respect for his latter books, cannot really be left out of the discussion. And as others have said, there is a lot of new blood coming up strong.

[quote]Just one note: "Writing discipline"? That's one thing that Erikson has and that Martin hasn't. At least Erikson is still a writer today. Martin has a lot more to "prove" than Erikson at this point.[/quote]

Erikson admits to not doing drafts of his books, which is pretty damning. He also admits that his editors don't have much control over them, as he argues them out of making changes which would affect other storylines further down the line. Pushing a subpar book out the door quickly is an indicator of a lack of writing discipline.

You could certainly say that GRRM goes way, way too far in the opposite direction by rewriting some of his chapters half a dozen times or more, but that's a very different thing.

And given that GRRM's sales are strong and expanding, his critical acclaim remains high (despite the mixed reception to AFFC) and his profile is growing, I'd say he has very little to prove at this point.

[quote]We know that Erikson isn't scared of finishing what he started.[/quote]

Which is why the [b]Malazan[/b] series has recently expanded to more than 120% of its originally-intended size, I'm sure.

[polishgenius]

About the size thing, being fair, Erikson never said there wouldn't be other books and the ICE books were always in the plan. The only thing I'm not sure about is the 'capping trilogy' - if it's actually to tie up loose ends left from the series then that fits. The Rake trilogy though is a different story and won't be required to get anything in the original ten or ICE's books, as far as anyone's said, though.

[Werthead]

[quote name='polishgenius' post='1562060' date='Oct 20 2008, 23.46']About the size thing, being fair, Erikson never said there wouldn't be other books and the ICE books were always in the plan. The only thing I'm not sure about is the 'capping trilogy' - if it's actually to tie up loose ends left from the series then that fits. The Rake trilogy though is a different story and won't be required to get anything in the original ten or ICE's books, as far as anyone's said, though.[/quote]

This is true. However, we were also told that ICE's books would be separate from the main series, which we know from [i]Return of the Crimson Guard[/i] is definitely not the case. And it now appears that Rake's backstory will be used to illuminate Mother Dark, Draconus and other concepts that are important to the main series but not expanded upon. The notion of a sequel trilogy to wrap up the loose ends would also suggest that there are elements from the main ten-book series that will not be addressed in the finale.

So, overall I am extremely sceptical of claims that these other books will not be required reading to understand the main series better.

[Trencher]

[quote name='Ashara' post='1561758' date='Oct 20 2008, 13.52']I frankly find Malazan boring, boring and even more boring. I managed the first book, and didn't like it with the exception of 1 character. I gave up on the second book about half-way in because it was so boring and pointless. I tried the third book because that's where my favorite character from the first was said to return, but I couldn't remember why I liked him to start with, and the book was boring... So, I gave up on Malazan after that.

It's not that I mind different stories in the same setting and various characters. It's just that the story is boring and there are no appealing characters in the book at all for me.

I'd suggest checking out Lynch or Abercrombie instead. :)[/quote]

I also recommend Abercrombie if you haven't read him yet. I could never recommend Erikson. GOTM and DG were a couple of the worst fantasy books I have ever read. Flat characters and laughable deus ex machina moments. I only hear it gets worse and by hearing some of the "spoilers" such as the jade statues, I am glad I am not wasting any more time with Erikson. It's very shallow yet convoluted D&D where he likes to make things up as he goes along. I still am a tad bitter for having wasted a few hours trying to get into Malazan after some of the positive reviews. Stay away and spend your time on something else.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1562071' date='Oct 20 2008, 23.51']And it now appears that Rake's backstory will be used to illuminate Mother Dark, Draconus and other concepts that are important to the main series but not expanded upon.[/quote]


Yeah, but it's expansion, rather than the continuing of major plot threads. Nothing in the Rake stuff so far has made me think "Yeah but he can't leave it [i]there". The trilogy seems more like a luxury than a necessity.


I hadn't head anyone say ICE's series was going to be separate, so fair enough if they did.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

Mileage may vary, but my own personal experience:

-If my friends are more fans of ASOIAF, I've handed them Bakker before even considering Malazan. Possibly because of the "deeper" themes and its tighter focus (I don't know if this makes much sense), the Bakker books seem to have a bit more of a grounding in a historical setting and more personal characterization of the actors in the books.

-If my friends are more Jordan fans (or RPG dorks), I'll recommend Malazan. Some people just like the cast of thousands and "badassness" and magic and all the minutiae in MBotF.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1562042' date='Oct 21 2008, 00.32']And Jordan, despite the lack of respect for his latter books, cannot really be left out of the discussion. And as others have said, there is a lot of new blood coming up strong.[/quote]
Jordan writes more within the genre, in the sense that it's more close to being a "classic".

Martin, Erikson, Bakker, Abercrombie, these have a more 'adult' orientation, try to break a bit the conventions and so meet more likely a similar public that compares them.

Goodkind probably sells more than Martin, I don't know, but he's rarely compared with those other writers.

What's the great new blood? Abercrombie, maybe, but what he tries to do is far from the wide scope or ambition you find in Martin or Bakker or Erikson.

There are others like KJ Parker, Mieville, Greg Keyes, Rothfuss, but they hardly share a a similar "intent".

[quote]And given that GRRM's sales are strong and expanding, his critical acclaim remains high (despite the mixed reception to AFFC) and his profile is growing, I'd say he has very little to prove at this point.[/quote]
I don't know how Martin's critical acclaim and success can grow *now* that his last acclaimed book was published in the 2000.

Eight years have passed, another one will pass before we see the next book. I think he has a whole lot to prove if we don't want to consider him a writer of the "past".

What he has achieved is out of doubt, but it's unfinished, half-done work. First he has to prove that things aren't out of hand by publishing the next book and have it well received. And after doing that he still has to prove that he is determined to go on.

He has a lot to prove if he wants to be considered an active writer today and not just someone whose moment passed and whose biggest effort is left unfinished.

Five years didn't make AFFC a better book. We still have to see if these eight years are really going in the way of quality. It's all unproven.

More time != better book. Both A Storm of Sword and Memories of Ice were written in a rather short time span. How do you justify this if you believe that quality is a matter of time and editing?