I heard the Malazan books are good

[polishgenius]

[quote name='End of Disc One' post='1657061' date='Jan 21 2009, 18.52']Do you consider the climax to be

SPOILER: TB

Paran at Poliel's temple?

. I never really thought of that being the climax though it is one of my favorite parts. Actually I can't really think of a fitting climax since the threads aren't tied togther that well. Even so, I loved the book.[/quote]


Nah,

SPOILER: tbh

the battle at Y'gattan, although I've spelt that wrong. It's basically what the first half of the book is building up to, pacing-wise.

As for the structure thing - I think each book is, within itself, well structured (especially the first few), although there are occasional loose ends, but his structure of the series as a whole is, frankly (and by his own admission) all over the place. Characters arrive in places before they've left others, others switch gender, one major plot point in book 1 is completely forgotten about in book 3 (Lorn's sword - Erikson's stated in interviews that he didn't mean to leave it out, he just forgot it was there). The fact that he specifically made a comment on the Malazanempire forums saying, more or less, "yep, I fucked up the timeline, just roll with it" pretty much says it's not meticulously planned.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Guy Kilmore' post='1657019' date='Jan 21 2009, 19.27']I respectfully disagree. I think Erikson has a plan on where things go, I think there are certain things that he wants to occur. I think he has an ending in mind and is definately attempting to center around a couple of central themes

Alot of the series reads with several retcons and major changes to the world and character motivation that really don't make a whole lot of sense. I agree he has tangents, but I do not agree that they are well organized.[/quote]
He has explained that he knows how the plots develop, where characters start and where they end. He knows how the cycle goes on till the last book.

Everything in between is made as he goes. I don't think that you can do otherwise or the books would be already written. Every authors who does planning works like that.

Again, I'm only at book 3 but retconning up to this point was part of the plot and not a misstep. There are a number of details in book 1 that make only sense much later. Two hours ago while tracking another thing I found a dialogue that is foreshadowing things to come in book 5. If that's not planning then I don't know what can be.

It is a fact that book 1 is hard because it puts readers off balance. The majority of the text there acquires meaning later on. So some suggest to start from the second. But by starting with the second you maybe have more chances of liking it and sticking with it, but you also lose a lot of the fun.

By the end of book 1 I was craving for answers on certain plots points. By the middle of book 2 I got my answers and was pleased. By the end of book 2 everything fell apart again and I was skeptic. By the middle of book 3 everything turned on its head and part of a much bigger picture. Finally, by the end of book 3 (and has been like this for a few hundreds pages) I think I grasp the whole thing and every time some new piece is introduced I know where to place it. I ave the feel that it's finally "whole".

Till the end of book 2 more and more elements are added without a clear idea on how to place them. With book 3 Erikson finally starts to fill the gaps (and on a scale that is staggering compared to book 1 and 2). All the plot holes in book 1 and 2 are patched and I'm pleased again. More then pleased, I admire his work because he managed to do something extraordinary (up to this point).

From what I know about book 4 and 5, he is going to continue to fill the gaps now that the scheme is clearer. Returns of the Crimson Guard (Quon Tali) and Stonewielder (Korelri) are kind of already planned in the big scheme. Everything seems to fit.


[quote]What I am trying to say is that Erikson knows that there is a point A, a point B, a Point C and so fourth, just he closes his eyes and almost lets chance dictate how those dot gets connected. It is his style. I remember reading back in a couple of threads that he doesn't really edit or proof, he basically goes off of one draft. While interesting, it doesn't strike me as well-planned.[/quote]
Not doing a draft is a sign of VERY GOOD planning, especially because he writes stuff that surpasses in complexity and intricacy everything I've read up to this point. Without some amazing planning it would all fall apart.

Erikson is bound to his contract and doesn't have the luxury, like Martin, to write when he wants and push a release date for years. It's not that he doesn't rewrite because he's lazy, but because he has a job, a contract, and he has deadlines to meet as part of the deal.

Sure, he agreed to that, and I think he's doing splendidly within human possibilities.

[End of Disc One]

You can tell that Erikson writes books pretty stream-of-consciously and from start to finish, even though he knows the key things he's going to write about. For example when he introduces an aspect of the world, you'll see him talk about it again and again in the next few POV changes, because it's still fresh in his mind. He himself has said that if he were to diagram everything out and make timelines, then the books would lose a lot of their magic. And I can understand that.

[superkick]

Excluding side novels and novellas, Ive just finished everythign, and the only real dissapoinment I had was Midnight tides, as I felt it was waay too long and that story didnt really need to be a book in itself, and could not really get myself to get emotionally atatched to the characters, because ..well I jsut didnt care about them, and wanted to read about everyone else. Still a good book though..besides that The writing strucutr of toll the hounds kind of got on my nerves with all that exposition at the beginning of each chapter, but all in all i find the series to be brilliant, and very unique compared to most of the stuff around now adays, it has its own magical feel to it.

[RedEyedGhost]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657123' date='Jan 21 2009, 12.38']at book 3 but retconning up to this point was [b]part of the plot and not a misstep.[/b][/quote]

:o

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657123' date='Jan 21 2009, 11.38']From what I know about book 4 and 5, he is going to continue to fill the gaps now that the scheme is clearer.[/quote]
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If this is what you think be prepared to be severely disappointed.

[Guy Kilmore]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657123' date='Jan 21 2009, 13.38']Not doing a draft is a sign of VERY GOOD planning, especially because he writes stuff that surpasses in complexity and intricacy everything I've read up to this point. Without some amazing planning it would all fall apart.

Erikson is bound to his contract and doesn't have the luxury, like Martin, to write when he wants and push a release date for years. It's not that he doesn't rewrite because he's lazy, but because he has a job, a contract, and he has deadlines to meet as part of the deal.

Sure, he agreed to that, and I think he's doing splendidly within human possibilities.[/quote]
Not Drafting isn't a behavior one shows that they are planning well. A draft is how you plan to catch all those inconcistancies (sp?). He doesn't do this. I am fine with it, but people who like polished writing and are really concerned with the art of "word smithing" would not be. Structure is not one of the strong suits of the series.

I think you and I have a different definition of Retconning. A retcon for me is an "ooops" I really want it to be this way, so it is now. This doesn't imply a plan. Erikson plans his series much like RDM plans Battlestar Galatica. There are themes and concepts, but they go with what is interesting. I have fun with both.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Guy Kilmore' post='1657358' date='Jan 21 2009, 23.20']Not Drafting isn't a behavior one shows that they are planning well. A draft is how you plan to catch all those inconcistancies (sp?). He doesn't do this.[/quote]
And where are all these inconsistencies in Erikson's books?

If there are some mistakes it is between books. Doing drafts can only improve the consistence within the same book, and this is not a flaw of Erikson that I recognize.

[quote]I am fine with it, but people who like polished writing and are really concerned with the art of "word smithing" would not be. Structure is not one of the strong suits of the series.[/quote]
Where are these flaws in the structure?

And what's the series that shares a similar level of complexity that does all things right as you seem to expect?

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657568' date='Jan 21 2009, 19.20']And where are all these inconsistencies in Erikson's books?[/quote]
:rofl: :rofl:

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657568' date='Jan 21 2009, 19.20']Where are these flaws in the structure?[/quote]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(sorry, but I don't know what else to say)

[cerankoman]

I agree. It bores me when it takes 200 pages to get into a book. If it can't grip my attention in the first chapter I stop reading. Because I can go to another book and be pulled into it. I hated The Black Company novels. When I read Eriksons Malazan it seemed much like Black Company. I really wanted to read Black Company and the first novel was excruciating to get through and it was silly. It was like watching a bad movie for three days. So when I started getting the Black company vibe with Malazan I tossed it. Cook Writes very convoluted and he skips scenes without telling you whats going on, he doesn't finish a scene!! Like a child with severe ADHD trying to tell you whats happening. I began reading Malazan and it seemed like that was his style of writing also. SUPERPOWERED WIZARDS is correct. When Magic is that powerful its a bit silly. Excuse my spelling I'm kinda drunk right now. LOL.



(The Camulod Chronicles) by Jack Whyte is very GRRM esque. Its a retelling of the arthurian legend IE Romans leftover after the fall of the empire. Its an incredible series. Gritty realism at its finest.

[Gormenghast]

Roll laughing all you want. I've yet to see someone complaining about internal consistence within THE SAME book. Drafts would only affect those, if you don't expect a writer to write all the books before he publishes the first.

That said, inconsistencies only ruin my experience when they are about two aspects:

1- Mythology
2- Characters motivations

In this thread someone complained about Lorn's sword disappearing as "major plot hole". Well, if a sword disappearing is a major plot hole then I'm glad. For me that's minutiae. Sure, I'd really like all those things to be fixed, and I also hope that sometimes in the future Erikson takes all he wrote and spends time to make a full revision like Tolkien kept doing.

On some levels even Tolkien isn't safe from small inconsistencies here and there, and he's someone who worked CONSTANTLY on the whole thing to get it right. So, again, I don't understand who's this champion of plotting standards compared to which Erikson fails.

There are more errors in GotM that were even fixed between versions. A wrong warren game, a wrong name in a dialogue, and other quibbles like that.

The only relevant mistakes I've heard about are the timeline inconsistencies that appear later in the books and some aspects about the jade statues that Werthead always complain about that may still be explained to some extent. Everyone strives to perfection, and as I already explained in another thread this is fundamental if you want to work on mysteries and hidden truths, or everything falls apart and looks like a joke.

But for what I've seen the mistakes are on the surface and not deep in the structure. And despite the lack of perfection I don't see how the plotting and structure can be taken as a main flaw when I see it as one main strength of the series (hardly rivaled by human standards).

[Paxter]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657943' date='Jan 22 2009, 22.38']2- Characters motivations[/quote]

Well, there is the matter of Tayschrenn. Admittedly, I am only halfway through HoC, but GoTM and MoI seemed to present two different Tayschrenns to the reader. So I must put this into the category of a "major plot hole" (although perhaps this will be cleared up in later books?).

But I do agree that forgetting Lorn's sword really doesn't phase me at all.

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657943' date='Jan 22 2009, 22.38']There are more errors in GotM that were even fixed between versions. A wrong warren game, a wrong name in a dialogue, and other quibbles like that.[/quote]

I believe he has also corrected the gender of Orfantal in GoTM (from female to male).

[End of Disc One]

[quote name='cerankoman' post='1657689' date='Jan 22 2009, 00.47']Like a child with severe ADHD trying to tell you whats happening.[/quote]

Sounds to me like you're the one with ADHD if you can't get past the first chapter of a book...

[superkick]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1657956' date='Jan 22 2009, 08.58']Well, there is the matter of Tayschrenn. Admittedly, I am only halfway through HoC, but GoTM and MoI seemed to present two different Tayschrenns to the reader. So I must put this into the category of a "major plot hole" (although perhaps this will be cleared up in later books?).

But I do agree that forgetting Lorn's sword really doesn't phase me at all.



I believe he has also corrected the gender of Orfantal in GoTM (from female to male).[/quote]


Tayschrenn is cleared up pretty well..actually it might occur at the end of house of chains..forgot when it happens but I never had any problem with him in the first place.

People can complain all they want about super powered characters, but even being super powered alot of them get killed off..it all balances out.

[Gormenghast]

It's just that superpowers, magic and flying fortress give easy arguments to attack someone's writing as childish.

Pretty much what non-fantasy readers do to fantasy ones.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1657943' date='Jan 22 2009, 13.38']Roll laughing all you want. I've yet to see someone complaining about internal consistence within THE SAME book. Drafts would only affect those[/quote]


Emm... no? Doing drafts would have led to him catching, for example, the sword thing, or Orfantal's gender. Doing drafts would have enabled him to catch and correct the timeline/age issues in TtH, or take out the unneeded mention of Pale in HoC that totally ruins Karsa's timeline.

[Gormenghast]

That's not about what we were discussing. We were discussing plotting issues, while those are mistakes that are more related to details.

[superkick]

who cares about lorns sword. Its not affecting the storyline in any way whatsoever. Stop bringign up pointless thigns as an attempt at an arguement.

[williamjm]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1657956' date='Jan 22 2009, 13.58']Well, there is the matter of Tayschrenn. Admittedly, I am only halfway through HoC, but GoTM and MoI seemed to present two different Tayschrenns to the reader. So I must put this into the category of a "major plot hole" (although perhaps this will be cleared up in later books?).[/quote]

Are you referring to the two different accounts of Taychrenn's actions at the battle of Pale? I felt that wasn't so much a plot hole as different characters having different views of the same event - from what I remember (and I think it's been about six or seven years since I read GOTM) we never hear Tay's point of view and while other characters do assume the worst of his actions there, I don't think it's necessarily a plot hole that when he tells his story his actions have a different explanation. That said, I would really have to re-read sometime to see whether his later story really is consistent with what we see in GOTM.

[polishgenius]

[quote name='superkick' post='1658344' date='Jan 22 2009, 18.26']who cares about lorns sword. Its not affecting the storyline in any way whatsoever. Stop bringign up pointless thigns as an attempt at an arguement.[/quote]


You dismissing it as irrelevant does not make it so. Given the capabilities it displayed in the first book, the sword could have made a pretty enormous difference considering all the magical entanglements Paran was involved in in the third. And the point isn't how big an effect it has on the story - the point I was making is that Gormenghast said that drafts would only have caught inconsistencies within the book which are generally pretty absent, and I picked an example of an inter-book inconsistency that could have been ironed out by drafting it.

Gormenghast - we were discussing structural issues and the downsides of Erikson's writing method, all of which my examples illustrate. If you want one that's clearly a plot issue, then have Cottillion's personality - first book he's presented as cruel, implacable and generally nasty, which swiftly disappears and is eventually handwaved in a workable but unconvincing retcon. It is a GotMism, which are the most prevalent errors and the ones most understandable as he wrote it ten years before, but I can't help but feel if he'd given it a quick re-write before the final publication it might have gelled smoothly with the rest.


In terms of internal book structure- all the books after MT are less well structured than those before, but I see you haven't read them so I won't go into it. But I will say that you're playing poker without the full hand of cards by arguing over a series of which you've only read just over a third of what's written.

[quote]So, again, I don't understand who's this champion of plotting standards compared to which Erikson fails.[/quote]

Who said there has to be one? The lack of a present perfect example doesn't mean we can't expect authors to be perhaps doing better.
That said, Erikson (and indeed Martin) could take lessons from Jim Butcher's long-range planning in the Dresden Files series. And, in comics, Neil Gaiman's Sandman series is a masterful example of a series that starts with no concrete, already-defined plan, by the end, is hugely complex, entirely consistent, and links its later plots back to its earlier ones.