Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[Iskaral Pust]

I forgot to mention that Erickson also has some good comic relief characters: Iskaral Pust, Kruppe and Tehol Beddict spring to mind.

I found those characters almost reminiscent of Douglas Adams' humor.

[Lightsnake]

Erikson has 'good' comic relief characters?

A sentence like that should never, ever be constructed.

[Kevin_Lannister]

[quote]I'm not entirely sure how excited he can be about something he wrote 30 years ago (The Ice Dragon was written in 1979, his part of Hunter's Run was written in 1981).[/quote]

I disagree but maybe it was just when i saw him. He felt very happy that he could now release new wild cards, and his older stories and I think someone can be very excited by the fact the public can see there old work. He seemed more happy the public will see these works than talking about the series that allowed that. Which I have no gripe with, Wildcards is which introduced me to Martin :thumbsup:

But besides that I agree with you Werthead on all points.

[quote]Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. And I do think MBF is more gruesome and graphic than ASoIaF. The bodies piled multiple-stories high in the third book probably match everything in ASoIaF by itself.[/quote]

Anyone else have anything to add on the difference of Erikson, Bakker and Martin before I make a decision on getting Malazan.

[Benjen Stark]

[quote name='Iskaral Pust' post='1562942' date='Oct 21 2008, 13.12']I forgot to mention that Erickson also has some good comic relief characters: Iskaral Pust, Kruppe and Tehol Beddict spring to mind.

I found those characters almost reminiscent of Douglas Adams' humor.[/quote]
The soldiers have a fair number as well, such as the drunk in chief, Hellian. Plus many of the soldiers (especially marines & Bridgeburners) engage in the sort of witty verbal repartee that fits more in with Black Adder IV than with Band of Brothers.

[Shryke]

Tehol is quite amusing.


Anyway, I think GRRM doesn't like to talk about ASOIAF at conventions and stuff because he's sick of so many fucking people pestering him about it.

Some people, on this board no less, are insane in their continual "WHAT ISN'T IT OUT YET?!?!?!?" schtick.

Calm the fuck down. Good things are worth waiting for.

[Benjen Stark]

Tehol is funny with a cooperative straight man (usually Bugg). Erickson also does the uncomfortable silence around the incredibly stupid/crazy person pretty well. (Ubaral Pung eats the comfrey, Hellian + sober soldiers, anybody outside his group attempting to talk to Tehol, etc.) But some of his "funny" characters fall more in the category of painful the read. (Like Kruppe.)

[quote name='Kevin_Lannister' post='1562977' date='Oct 21 2008, 13.43']Anyone else have anything to add on the difference of Erikson, Bakker and Martin before I make a decision on getting Malazan.[/quote]
I like Malazan for the breadth of worldbuilding. I like Prince of Nothing more based upon the same thing, as Bakker's world might be a lot narrower, but it is far, far deeper. Above I compared to Malazan to being the result of a forced collaboration between famous anthropologist/sociologist/linguist and a famous comic book writer told the start with Dungeons and Dragons. Bakker is what you'd get if you told a roomful of philosophy and medieval history PhD students to continue Tolkien's Lord of the Rings a few millenia after the good guys lose instead of winning.

[Krafus]

The bodycounts are quite high in both series, but IMO Bakker's books are much nearer to ASOIAF in terms of characterization than the Malazan series, where sometimes it feels that at least a full third of the characters are philosophy majors. Also, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there's a [i]lot[/i] more magic in the Malazan books than ASOIAF, and the gods are quite active, some even to the point of being POV characters.

Werthead;

[quote]There is also the fact that a small amount of material from ADWD has been released to the public which indicates the book will not suffer from the same problems as AFFC.[/quote]

I fail to see how the chapters we're read from GRRM's site or heard about from convention reports show that ADWD won't have the same problems as AFFC. As I recall, there was a number of "preview" chapters available for AFFC, too (I distinctly remember several Jaime and Cersei ones), and nothing pointed to the book's sadly short length, its reduced pacing or its lack of viscerally exciting moments.

Also, ASoS, the book you yourself point out was written in the shortest amount of time, is to many people the best in the series, while AFFC, written in the longest amount of time, is the weakest. Given that we're closing in on three years for ADWD, and that GRRM mentioned he had already written a number of chapters for it before the split in two books, that doesn't inspire confidence.

[Kalbear]

Every single preview chapter of GRRM's work has more character, story and better written paragraphs than any of Erikson's whole books. If those are things you value, Erikson is not for you.

[Werthead]

[quote]I fail to see how the chapters we're read from GRRM's site or heard about from convention reports show that ADWD won't have the same problems as AFFC. As I recall, there was a number of "preview" chapters available for AFFC, too (I distinctly remember several Jaime and Cersei ones), and nothing pointed to the book's sadly short length, its reduced pacing or its lack of viscerally exciting moments.[/quote]

Short length? I don't have a wordcount, but AFFC appears to be at least the same length as AGoT, if not longer. This is difficult to pin down as the paperback is about 200 pages longer than AGoT, but has a notably larger font size. The other two issues I would agree with, to a certain extent.

As to the rest, the preview chapters for ADWD are notably packed with more incident and plot development than the same for AFFC.

SPOILER: ADWD preview chapters, very minor spoilers

We're talking one reasonably major character biting the dust and at least one battle sequence. Oh yeah, and the prologue appears to be the best of the five to date.

[quote]Also, ASoS, the book you yourself point out was written in the shortest amount of time, is to many people the best in the series, while AFFC, written in the longest amount of time, is the weakest. Given that we're closing in on three years for ADWD, and that GRRM mentioned he had already written a number of chapters for it before the split in two books, that doesn't inspire confidence.[/quote]

AFFC wasn't written in the longest amount of time, though. AGoT was. There is some debate about exactly how long each took, but strip out the 18 months he spent working on a different book from the start of the AFFC writing process and you have 3.5 years, whilst GRRM spent the better part of 5 years working on AGoT. He took some time out to write a TV script though, so it's difficult to pin exactly how much time it took, but at the very least it appears to be as long as AFFC, if not substantially more.

[Krafus]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1563131' date='Oct 21 2008, 16.48']Short length? I don't have a wordcount, but AFFC appears to be at least the same length as AGoT, if not longer. This is difficult to pin down as the paperback is about 200 pages longer than AGoT, but has a notably larger font size. The other two issues I would agree with, to a certain extent.[/quote]

Come to think of it, the font size likely exacerbated my frustration with AFFC's length. I thought I was in for a nearly ASOS-size book... then not only do I realize the book's size has been artificially inflated (at least compared to the three previous books) by the large font, but then, when I was hoping for exciting denouement to the Cersei situation, I instead come upon the end and that monstrous appendix.

[quote]As to the rest, the preview chapters for ADWD are notably packed with more incident and plot development than the same for AFFC.[/quote]

As for the ADWD preview chapters... I'll grant that more momentous events seem to happen in them than in the AFFC spoiler chapters as I remember them, but it's still not a guarantee that ADWD won't ultimately turn out

[quote]AFFC wasn't written in the longest amount of time, though. AGoT was. There is some debate about exactly how long each took, but strip out the 18 months he spent working on a different book from the start of the AFFC writing process and you have 3.5 years, whilst GRRM spent the better part of 5 years working on AGoT. He took some time out to write a TV script though, so it's difficult to pin exactly how much time it took, but at the very least it appears to be as long as AFFC, if not substantially more.[/quote]

Even granting that AGoT might be the book that took the largest amount of time, this doesn't appease my worries. Taking into account that he had a number of chapters already written for ADWD before he turned his full attention to it after AFFC's publication, his writing pace certainly seems slower than with previous books. As for the size, more momentous events and action than in AFFC would certainly help, but after waiting effectively eight years for it, I'm really hoping that ADWD won't be just a little longer than AFFC.

An update with substantive information could lay my fears to rest, or at least settle the issue one way or the other, but, sadly, we're not getting updates.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1563160' date='Oct 21 2008, 22.13']Even granting that AGoT might be the book that took the largest amount of time, this doesn't appease my worries. Taking into account that he had a number of chapters already written for ADWD before he turned his full attention to it after AFFC's publication, his writing pace certainly seems slower than with previous books.[/quote]

I think the fact that he had chapters is pretty irrelevant, or if anything the cause of the length of time it's taking. Half the problem with Feast was the structure - I didn't think it was too slow, as that's not a problem if the pacing's right, it was just paced [i]badly[/i], and it seemed clear that came from half the planned book being put aside. With that in mind, it seems not unusual that a perfectionist like GRRM is taking his time getting the right structure in place.

[Kevin_Lannister]

Come on lets try to stay on topic here people. Who cares how long aDwD takes..... as long as its good. And we cant judge that until it comes out, so theres no point in complaining. Back to the topic.

What are some important pluses/minuses to the malazan series for someone who is a fan of dark fantasy and Martin?
Is Bakker a better choice to a reader who enjoys Martin? (It doesnt have to be similar to aSoIaF in every way)
Do you predict the Malazan series and upcoming Bakker novels to get better or worse?

[Kalbear]

[quote]What are some important pluses/minuses to the malazan series for someone who is a fan of dark fantasy and Martin?[/quote]Plusses:
Big world
many characters
important people die (well, kinda sorta)
dark humor

Minuses:
poor writing
inconsistent characterization
meandering plots with unsatisfying climaxes

[Tarapas Amran]

Editeded to be on topic:

Kalbears summation is pretty spot on. I would say that Erikson gives us a more diverse world in the way of Ursula le Guin and that it should be stressed more. We have a world where it feels natural to have ethniticities as they are. Martin has the problem most fantasy authors have with this. I consider that a point of quality.

You actually belive that almost anyone can die. For example I don't belive Jon, Tyrion, Bran, Dany and so on will die very soon, if ever. Of course, Martin might want to have the reader feel that way, but it distracts from the suspense. In principal I don't care but some do seem to take that as an important point.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Kevin_Lannister' post='1563190' date='Oct 21 2008, 23.58']Is Bakker a better choice to a reader who enjoys Martin? (It doesnt have to be similar to aSoIaF in every way)[/quote]
Usually yes. They are closer in style.

[Kalbear]

And to be clear - my points were more of 'what would appeal to a fan of Martin's work specifically'. Erikson has a lot going for him for fantasy; his world is huge, complex. His magic is huge and powerful. Things are epic in scope and behavior, far more than most anything. It's basically a world of superheroes, and if you dig that, you'll dig Erikson.

But if you want nuanced writing with flawed characters and shades of gray, you've really come to the wrong place.

Bakker...I'm not sure if his books will get better. Neuropath basically took a theme of his fantasy book and extended it, and just hammered that point OVER AND OVER. It kind of sucked for that. I hope that he'll do well, and he's clearly done his research into his world, but at the same time he could get kind of preachy. He may be as much a Martin as a Goodkind.

[Tarapas Amran]

[quote name='Kevin_Lannister' post='1563190' date='Oct 21 2008, 23.58']Come on lets try to stay on topic here people. Who cares how long aDwD takes..... as long as its good. And we cant judge that until it comes out, so theres no point in complaining. Back to the topic.

What are some important pluses/minuses to the malazan series for someone who is a fan of dark fantasy and Martin?
Is Bakker a better choice to a reader who enjoys Martin? (It doesnt have to be similar to aSoIaF in every way)
Do you predict the Malazan series and upcoming Bakker novels to get better or worse?[/quote]

Bakker is heavy on magic, more reliant on ideas to drive the trilogy. If he will get better or worse isn't as much problem as it is with Erikson. PoN can be read as a trilogy, despite some trying to desperatly claim otherwise. So only by that I would say take Bakker instead. It is a great, if brutal, read.


Bakker will continue in his world, with a consecutive series. I do belive he will keep his quality better than both Martin and especially Erikson but I'm not sure.

Between Bakker and Erikson I would say Bakker.

[Arakasi]

If we're going for pluses/minues I'd agree with Kal in the big world, big characters, deaths, dark humour and add on strong history, strong set pieces (Capustan, Chain of Dogs, ending of TTH, etc), good magic system, strong theological system (gods and worshipers and how they interact) and themes (how much you want to read about themes is up to you, but each book usually runs with 1 strong one that goes through many arcs).

I'd also agree with inconsistent characters. There are some very strong characters, and then there are many archetype characters (like the commonly used philosopher who might be a soldier, prostitute or whatever, aka people like to think a lot) And then of course there are filler characters. I don't agree with the poor writing, if anything that would be inconsistent writing. There is plenty of great stuff through all the books, but there is your share of clunker moments too. Of course I'd say its more good than bad, but I am a fan. And if we're talking about just quality of prose, there is some very strong stuff there throughout all of the books. Each book usually has 4-5 scenes that he just nails perfectly in prose for me, that I can close my eye and imagine it in my head. And then he'll have things like "runaway armored wagon" which just make you go :stunned: .

I'm not sure where to even place the thing of meandering plots and unsatisfying climaxes. Well I know what to say about the later. Climaxes are generally quite strong. The problem isn't that so much as the books structure is always in the same form with first three parts of each book building up to minor climaxes with the last part having the main climax. The series til now has been a series of stand alones. Each book has its own climax, and for the most part they have been excellent. The issue then is the meandering part. It reminds me of what people say in software testing. "That isn't a bug, that's a feature!"

Erikson has come out and said that part of why he writes is to explore themes, to explore ideas like lust, or capitalism, or family, or whatnot. And has the series has progressed those parts have grown larger. But even early on (at least once we were past GotM) he introduced threads and plots that didn't intersect or didn't conclude. It's the tale of the fallen, and in such it tells the story of people and beings living in the world at this point in history. It doesn't mean its telling only the parts of the story that lead towards the conclusion with the big bad guy. This makes the books less cohesive, but it to me makes it feel more like a real world. Whether it makes for an interesting story I think is more up to the reader than anything else. So if anything I think the negative here would be that it lacks cohesion, especially when good chunks of books might not be advancing the main plot. The positive would be that it feels more like a real world.

Which I guess would lead me to my last criticism. That being style of books being inconsistent. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, it really depends on where you come from. GotM is very actiony. This is why among many it is still very much near the top of the list. But as the series has progressed the books get more cerebral. I don't think one can just plot it as a straight line on a graph (although certainly GotM and TTH lie at opposite ends of the spectrum), but as the series progresses the action set pieces drop in length/number which is normally replaced by more dialogue/plot/themes stuff. Some like KCF like that more, some like Rhaco like that less. Some like me think I'm still undecided on it.

But it is almost like you're reading 2 (or even 3) different series, in that the pacing and tone shift so much over the length of the series. I think for me that the perfect balance was probably book 5, Midnight Tides along with book 4 (I have always loved House of Chains on rereads, even though it gets criticized). Books 2 and 3 might have stronger ideas that the books are based off of than 4 and 5, but I think in 4-5 is when Erikson got most right the balance between all the things he brings as an author.

Edit: I agree Bakker is a technically better writer than Erikson, than again I think he's better than Martin too. I just hate Kelhus and what he writes/preaches about. The quality is certainly there, just the topics don't grab me.

[polishgenius]

I'd put Bakker at somewhat of a midpoint between Erikson and Martin, although there's a LotR vibe (not just in the sense all modern epic fantasy is, but in the specific feel of the book). It's heavy on magic, but it tends to be more subtle than Erikson's vs-topic-inspiring almost comic book style. The characters are more shades-of-grey than Erikson, heading towards the Martin camp, but are also often equally caricaturish/archetypal in their nature, just in another direction. There's a strong vibe of coming dread, and the big bad is for me given a similar treatment to Sauron in Tolkien, in the way it's kept very carefully behind the scenes as this mysterious force.
The main downside is that the philosophy does at times get in the way of the plot, and the characters can go a bit over-emo (which is wearying even if they have good reasons). At times I almost felt like I was reading a bookfull of Mhybes and Crokuses.
It is a good series, but I'd choose Erikson.

Kalbear is right in that it could go either way. If he dials back the philosophy so you're not getting thrown out of the story for passages of theorising that aren't conducive to the plot at hand, he can be stellar, but if he gets cocky it could be horrid.

[Arakasi]

A good way for me to see if you'd like Erikson is ask how you like the Silmarillion by Tolkien. Mortals, immortals and gods, mixed together in schemes, battles and wars. Tales of great heroism and tragedy, but a lot of archetypes. Are you a person who when Fingolfin cut through the hordes of Morgoth to challenge him in single combat and got the literal woody, or were you just turned off by tales of elvish princes and men scheming and wanted to get back to LotR or something else? Erikson is pretty much the Black Company (Glen Cook's series of vietnamish war soldiers stuck in fantasy, I mean not actual war soldiers, but that sense of camraderie and humor) meets the Silmarillion.