Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[Arakasi]

Well I doubt I'd believe that QB died. He's too tricky by far. ;) Than again he is my favorite character in the series. :)

SPOILER: Parts where deaths didn't work for me

I do agree with you on the first part, about the broken trust in 2 occasions. One is Brys, the other is how Hedge acted in umm, book 6 I think. Neither worked for me. I'm not sure if I would really call it a broken trust, but it is clearly parts where I didn't feel emotional impact and its possible on rereads that it might affect how I thought of their original deaths, especially in the case of Brys.

It doesn't mean that in the future I won't be shocked or dismayed when characters die. I think Trull in book 7 and Rake in book 8 pretty much nailed me on that. Especially Trull's senseless death. I just wanted the guy to be happy. Apparently Erikson when writing wasn't sure if he was going to kill him. He had originally planned on him living the series out. But when he got to writing the part he just changed his mind and killed him off.

I guess how I look for it as a bit of a hope, that if a character I likes dies maybe they'll come back. But also part of me hopes that they'll stay dead to keep the impact of their death. And since Erikson doesn't treat it in a consistent fashion, I've not fallen into thinking that everyone will come back. That suspense still exists for me. But like I said with Brys, I really like the character but don't feel at all that he should have come back. I just don't agree with that one.

And the Hedge vs WJ thing, both have made cameos. But WJ was a 2 paragraph part in the big climax as part of an undead army. Hedge instead showed up for 50 pages+ and had this whole long talks and such. Dead guy part of big undead army of past heroes = cool. Dead guy acting like living guy = not cool. Which brings me back to Brys. He in book 7 is not much different from book 5. He just comes back. No changes, no real consequences.

If they are going to bring someone back as themselves do it like Duiker. The guy is now utterly unlike how he was in DG. He's depressed and sad and broken.

Also would like to quibble on this power thing. Obviously ascendancy gives power, but for a good deal of the people who have actually really died and came back as who they were (Brys, Duiker, Paran if you want to count him, Coltaine, etc) there was no increase in power.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1563420' date='Oct 21 2008, 21.53']Well I doubt I'd believe that QB died. He's too tricky by far. ;) Than again he is my favorite character in the series. :)[/quote]
And if it turned out that Quick Ben really did die, well he didn't really have the emotional death scene he deserved because not many people would believe that he actually died, due to Erikson's penchant for resurrecting characters. This is the same reason why I didn't have an emotional reaction to the death scene I mentioned earlier, even though the character deserved an emotional reaction from me.

SPOILER: death

And didn't Paran come back as Master of the Deck, or something? Doesn't that give him some kind of power?

[paran]

[quote name='Kevin_Lannister' post='1563190' date='Oct 22 2008, 05.58']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]

I likes Bakker's series too. Why does it have to be either or? Get both 1st books in each series. Halfway through either book you will realise if you're keen on them. SE, Bakker and GRRM are the 3 authors I have probably enjoyed the most in the last decade, SE's work is quite thematic, book to book, but the stories do flow if you take a "bird's eye view" of the whole. If you're looking for a view on why MBotF kicks a$$, I recommend Joay Tomio's ode to SE:
[url="http://www.fantasybookspot.com/jaytomio/2005/11/11/mistaken-identity-pondering-steven-erikson/#more-300"]http://www.fantasybookspot.com/jaytomio/20...ikson/#more-300[/url]

Bakker is far more philosophical and focused in his Prince of Nothing saga, which is loosely based on the first crusades. Think of it as if an adult Paul Atreides at the height of his powers was dropped into the year 500AD, and what he could/would do. Jay's review of his first book below:
[url="http://www.fantasybookspot.com/jaytomio/2005/11/10/homeric-jihad-a-review-of-r-scott-bakkers-the-darkness-that-comes-before/"]http://www.fantasybookspot.com/jaytomio/20...t-comes-before/[/url]

I recommend you read both reviews, and if they tickle your fancy, have a go. The worst that can happen is that it's not for you. They're both quality, so treat yourself. Unless you feel you'd be being unfaithful to GRRM?

[Padraig]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1562888' date='Oct 21 2008, 18.25']With this current attitude he may finish Dance, and then be so glad that he'll never want to start writing the next.[/quote]
I can understand people fearing the worst but I think there is little basis to that opinion. I've seen GRRM at a reasonable number of cons and what you suggest doesn't fit. :)

[AverageGuy]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1563101' date='Oct 21 2008, 15.18']The bodycounts are quite high in both series[/quote]
Bakker has maybe a million dead. Erikson blows him away. Didn't hundreds of thousands die in the siege of Capustan alone?

Going to an earlier argument, I have to agree somewhat with Myshkin and admit that when [background=#000000][color="#000000"]Whiskeyjack[/color][/background] died, I fully expected him to resurrect and/or ascend momentarily, especially given [background=#000000][color="#000000"]Paran's[/color][/background] internal debate at the time and the earlier encounter with that Singer. Whether he'd be undead, living, or a demigod didn't matter, I didn't think there'd be a major difference, so it didn't feel like a real death to me. JMO.

[Krafus]

[quote name='AverageGuy' post='1563487' date='Oct 22 2008, 05.46']Bakker has maybe a million dead. Erikson blows him away. Didn't hundreds of thousands die in the siege of Capustan alone?[/quote]

And don't forget that, with Erikson, most of a continent apparently died of a plague.

Still, death, both of individual characters and of large numbers of people, is clearly a prevalent theme in both series. Just because, numerically speaking, Bakker is a hill compared to Erikson's mountain doesn't mean we should dismiss the hill out of hand.

[Arakasi]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1563423' date='Oct 22 2008, 00.03']And if it turned out that Quick Ben really did die, well he didn't really have the emotional death scene he deserved because not many people would believe that he actually died, due to Erikson's penchant for resurrecting characters. This is the same reason why I didn't have an emotional reaction to the death scene I mentioned earlier, even though the character deserved an emotional reaction from me.

SPOILER: death

And didn't Paran come back as Master of the Deck, or something? Doesn't that give him some kind of power?

[/quote]

SPOILER: paran

Paran became master of the deck yes, but that wasn't because Oppon interfered in Sorry's assasination attempt of him. I guess what I'm saying is that yes Paran does at a later point become MoD, but its not like he became it right after the near death experience. If any one experience could be said to have moved him in that direction, it was the physical interaction with the blood of the hounds Rake slayed.

[Arakasi]

Bakker and Erikson both like killing people off. They both are good at killing large numbers of non PoV characters off (or races, cities, etc) and both have killed PoV characters too. Erikson has killed more, but then again he has more books. I do think that Erikson pushes the tragedy angle more however in how he emotionally approaches his writing. He definitely likes setting up scenes for large emotional and tragic impact.

[Kalbear]

Arakasi, I do agree that Erikson's world is internally consistent with the mechanics of people coming back to life. At least most of the time. What I would argue is that even having that mechanic at all robs his work of any huge impact with respect to people dying. If you know that Ned Stark's ghost is going to be hanging around Arya after he dies and we're going to get more PoV chapters of him, his death becomes far less significant.

I'm not saying that happens to all the people in Malazan, but it is a recurring theme, and it does rob a lot of whatever emotional impact exists. It's hard to be worked up about people dying when they can come back at any time. Even if they don't, you know that that's the world they exist in, and that death just isn't that special.

[Relic]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1563931' date='Oct 22 2008, 12.49']I'm not saying that happens to all the people in Malazan, but it is a recurring theme, and it does rob a lot of whatever emotional impact exists. It's hard to be worked up about people dying when they can come back at any time. Even if they don't, you know that that's the world they exist in, and that death just isn't that special.[/quote]


Well i mostly agree. TTH had one death in particular that really struck a chords with me. Might be the only time Erikson pulled it off to my tastes.

[Arakasi]

I would disagree. Death would have no impact if after death (or when they come back) they act the same. Death (or near death) can be a powerful effect for change. Like Gandalf worked because when he came back you could see the changes in him.

SPOILER: Deaths

This is why Tattersail (completely different person, and a very unsympathetic one at that), Duiker (he's a shattered wreck), Coltaine and the other Wickans (way of transferring knowledge/memories, but not personality as Nil/Nether shows), Baudin (he has been referenced several times to be the new Knight of Death, however from what we've seen of him only his body is there. His mind, whatever is left of it is gone/changed), etc work for me. Because death has transformed these characters. They're not the same being they were.

This is where I get critical of Brys and Hedge. Brys should not have been brought back, and certainly not in the way he was where he is basically the same guy from MT. Bad decision. Hedge was also done oddly, sure he's dead but he's acting like he's alive and chatting it up with Paran and such. WJ was the right way to bring back a bridgeburner. Have him appear one time in a special event where Hood summons his armies for a cause. It makes sense within that limit and after that he's gone again. Hedge should have been handled like WJ, or just not brought in at all.

So yeah death to me is only cheated of the emotional impact when the author fails to show the transformative power it has on the character. If someone dies and goes through whatever and then comes back, he better not be the same Joe he/she was before. I feel for the most part Erikson has got that right, and while he has brought back some characters (some in part through soul reincarnation/magical rituals, some in full) I feel he has only jumped the shark in two occasions (the ones I mentioned in the spoilers). There is a third I'm not so sure about, but since Erikson turned around and killed the guy permanently again, I'll forgive him for that. :P

[Arakasi]

[quote name='Relic' post='1563973' date='Oct 22 2008, 12.16']Well i mostly agree. TTH had one death in particular that really struck a chords with me. Might be the only time Erikson pulled it off to my tastes.[/quote]

Which one is that? I think I'd guess

SPOILER: death

Murilio, or maybe one of the old bridgeburners that died

but not sure.

[Relic]

arak, the former. it hit hard.

SPOILER: TTH

Especially since its so abrupt. and then he gets kicked afterwards. brutal.

[Arakasi]

[quote name='Relic' post='1563992' date='Oct 22 2008, 12.26']arak, the former. it hit hard.

SPOILER: TTH

Especially since its so abrupt. and then he gets kicked afterwards. brutal.

[/quote]

Yeah I had much the same reaction to the death of

SPOILER: sad

Trull in RG. Things were starting to look up for him and then he just casually gets killed by that bastard. Fuck the Errant.

If there is one thing Erikson is good at is that he at times shows that death doesn't have to be meaningful or heroic. Sometimes death is just pathetic, sad and unexpected.

[Benjen Stark]

The death of much debate did not have that much emotional impact on me at the time, to be honest. I did speculate the character might be back.

On death count, the average T'lan Imass beats Martin in total deaths and Kallor's atrocity count makes anything Bakker came up with seem banal. If you judge on body count (for some strange reason), Erikson wins.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1563388' date='Oct 21 2008, 22.39']This is both ridiculous and offensive. We are talking about a work of fiction, not a religion. We are talking about trust in an author, and how an author who constantly negates what he previously used to draw out an emotional reaction risks breaking said trust. Furthermore we are talking about how the [i]reader[/i] reacts to these things, and not how the [i]characters[/i] react, making your point moot since it is a false analogy.[/quote]
Arak's comments were pretty much how I had interpreted what you were saying as well. When the opening scenes introducing a group of characters includes a relatively detailed discussion of how they reincarnate, I cannot possibly fathom how you'd feel cheated if one reincarnates? It might not be the very chapter they are introduced in, but it is within a very short number of pages.

I have not yet read TTH, so I'm staying away from black text now. I've already encountered a spoiler I didn't want to on this board.

[Arakasi]

Yeah sorry about that. The last 3-4 posts had spoilers on TTH, as did one of the ones earlier. Spoilers means spoilers. Read at your own peril.

[Calibandar]

Kalbear

[quote]Arakasi, I do agree that Erikson's world is internally consistent with the mechanics of people coming back to life. At least most of the time. What I would argue is that even having that mechanic at all robs his work of any huge impact with respect to people dying. If you know that Ned Stark's ghost is going to be hanging around Arya after he dies and we're going to get more PoV chapters of him, his death becomes far less significant.[/quote]

Totally agree with that. Actually one of the lesser bugbears for me where this series is concerned but very much true nevertheless.

I really don't think the two series are on the same level. Beginning with the sheer difference of writing quality/prose, the two authors are miles apart. And then you move on to worldbuilding, plotting and characterization and use of magic where again, major differences arise.

[Gigei]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1562723' date='Oct 21 2008, 11.42']Sigh, why always this? There is a lot of books out there but any dedicated fantasy reader who has been around a while should devour good books faster than they're being written.[/quote]

Yep. I don't see why people keep saying "there are so many good books, try them instead of ____" when I *always* have trouble finding good books. Out of like 10 I read, I only really like 1. Sometimes months go by when there is NOTHING good.

[quote]The soldiers have a fair number as well, such as the drunk in chief, Hellian.[/quote]

Hellian is sooo funny.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1563105' date='Oct 21 2008, 16.22']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.[/quote]

Really? Although GRRM is better than Erikson, I happen to like both writers.

Previous posters complained about the Malazan fanboys always screaming about how only stupid people don't "get" Malazan yet I notice a lot of people here saying that only dumb people who don't care about characterization, worldbuilding, plot, etc. would like Malazan. You are basically doing the same thing, you know.

[quote]GotM is very actiony. This is why among many it is still very much near the top of the list.[/quote]

Yes, it is still my fave book of the series. ;)

[quote]It becomes obvious fairly early on (about half way through book one) that death is not a permanent thing in Erikson's world. In fact, death is not always a bad thing in Erikson's world: it seems to be his favorite way to "level up" his characters[/quote]

Hmmm. Not exactly. A character "shows up" after his death but that doesn't mean he didn't die or that death means nothing. After all, can he go off into the sunset with his love interest and raise babies (as he was about to do before he died)? Nope.

Resurrection (via the normal way) also means losing your old life and being reborn as a baby. I mean, Buddhists may believe in resurrection but you don't see them killing themselves for nothing, do you? The person as they are still dies. Worse is being reborn in an abnormal way, your soul and body does not remain the same.

There has been, I think, one resurrection where the person basically remains the same after being reborn.

SPOILER: dancer and kell

Dancer and Kellanved

I don't think they did. They just disappeared, presumed dead but not actually dead.

[quote]Furthermore, what would be the point of actively casting a spell (do you see how this is different than Buddhism or Hinduism?) to reincarnate Coltaine if said reincarnation had nothing in common with the old Coltaine? Why do[/quote]

There was no spell. That being reborn thing is their religion, hence the comparison to Buddhism. It's just that in Malazan, religion works literally.

_____________________
Now in general:

I read fantasy to explore new worlds. I notice that *some* people like to have boundaries in fantasy literature, which to me pretty much negates the whole point of having fantastic literature in the first place.

I don't like people saying "death should always be final" or "super-powerful people aren't good because they are too powerful" or even "magic should have limits" (these are all actual examples from the forums) because this is exactly the type of thing fantasy writers shouldn't be afraid of writing.

Fantasy has the right to [i]fantastic[/i]. There's no point in having fantasy that has all the normal rules like "dead people should be dead" or "nobody can be all-powerful" or "we need rules, cleartly defined rules for magic" etc.

Of course, if people prefer to read the same old "magic system with A+B with people who have limits and who stay dead" well, that is their own personal preference but that is not mine. Nor am I the one who has bad taste just because I don't give a flying fart if resurrection or super-powerful people are present in a work of fantasy.

[Relic]

your spoiler=tag is the spoiler gigei

[Padraig]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1564950' date='Oct 23 2008, 16.42']Nor am I the one who has bad taste just because I don't give a flying fart if resurrection or super-powerful people are present in a work of fantasy.[/quote]
Yes. You are back to the traditional reasons why people can't agree on the qualities of a book. Some don't like certain aspects in a book. Others don't mind them appearing as long as they are done well. And arguing how well an author handled these things is why we have message boards. :)