I heard the Malazan books are good

[superkick]

more than likely ganoes wouldnt ever use the sword, which is probablywhy it isnt mentioned again. Pretty much similiar as to how tavore also has an otataral sword and rarely ever uses it.

Plus considering his pwoers the sword would probably negate them, hence why it dissapeed..or be inconsequential to his current powers rendering it useless.

thirdly being erikson, theres still a chance what happened to it will be mentioned in a later book, so you cant really go out right and say its a flaw.

[polishgenius]

Erikson has admitted he forgot. It was mentioned in a later book, Bonehunters to be exact, but that doesn't change the fact that, for no reason, it simply wasn't there in MoI.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='polishgenius' post='1658771' date='Jan 23 2009, 00.51']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.[/quote]
Okay. I was merely disagreeing with who said the plotting was a flaw of the series, while I see it as a strong point.

The mistakes and small inconsistencies are to be tolerated with a work so ambitious, intricate and with a so broad scope. If anything it shows Erikson creative skill and full potential if he didn't have to comply to strict deadlines (but then I don't really care about small mistakes and glad that a so huge series is being closed in the next couple of years).

Besides, most if not all these kinds of mistakes could be solved if only Erikson relied more on advance readers and integrate them in the process. Dunno why he isn't taking advantage of that some more.

[Guy Kilmore]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1658887' date='Jan 22 2009, 19.27']Okay. I was merely disagreeing with who said the plotting was a flaw of the series, while I see it as a strong point.

The mistakes and small inconsistencies are to be tolerated with a work so ambitious, intricate and with a so broad scope. If anything it shows Erikson creative skill and full potential if he didn't have to comply to strict deadlines (but then I don't really care about small mistakes and glad that a so huge series is being closed in the next couple of years).

Besides, most if not all these kinds of mistakes could be solved if only Erikson relied more on advance readers and integrate them in the process. Dunno why he isn't taking advantage of that some more.[/quote]
Never said it was a flaw (I assume you are talking about me). I pointed out an observation about it. I have no problem and I enjoy the flavor of it for this series, but I wouldn't recommend Erikson to someone if structure and polish is very important to them.

I really don't want to get into specific examples because I will not enjoy spoilering the series for you. I enjoy it, I wait eagerly for the next book.

[Lord of Rhinos]

The problem with many small inconsistencies is that it makes it seems like the author is sloppy and doesn't care. Erikson is asking for a lot of faith from his readers because his story is so opaque. Unfortunately, I haven't had that faith in him since the end of the Deadhouse Gates, so I tend to view claims of Erikson's meticulous plotting with extreme skepticism.

I think the fact Erikson's fans have coined the term "GoTMism" to hand wave away his inconsistencies between the first book and the rest of the series and adopted the mantra "the timeline does not matter" to address the train wreck that is continuity in the series speaks to Erikson's lack of skill when dealing with details. Neither of these things makes me think Erikson is doing a good job of plotting his series. I can't think of a single author that has been as inconsistent in their work as Erikson.

I'd be happy to discuss a lot of the specific plotting issues I have with the series (like just WTH was going on in Gardens of the Moon, what Tayschreen and Laseen are up to, what Shadowthrone and Cotillion's plan is, etc) because there are a lot of things that don't make sense to me and I'd love a good explanation for them but that would be pretty spoilerific so I'd prefer to do it in a more appropriate thread.


And I just want to point out that doing multiple drafts can certainly increase consistency between books. It just means the author has to actually read over his previous work and make modifications with those details in mind.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Tarant' post='1660713' date='Jan 24 2009, 19.50']I can't think of a single author that has been as inconsistent in their work as Erikson.[/quote]

But then again Tarant, have you ever read a series more ambitious than Malazan?

[superkick]

well tasyechren is jsut following laseens orders and doing what he feels is best for the empire, though it seems with how thigns were left in reapers gale that may not be the case for long, as for what laseens doing who knows besides tryign to run the empire, and what cotillion is shadowthrone are up to, i doubt we will fully know until the series is over. To give the short run of things.

Just because the full picture si there yet doesnt make it a plotting error, it just means erikson hasnt revealed the details behind what is going on yet, as he tends to have thigns happen and then not expain until much alter, but when you finally ahcieve that explanation it all makes sense. Its not really a plotting issue as much as its he doesnt want you to fully grasp it yet.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Tarant' post='1660713' date='Jan 24 2009, 02.50']The problem with many small inconsistencies is that it makes it seems like the author is sloppy and doesn't care. Erikson is asking for a lot of faith from his readers because his story is so opaque. Unfortunately, I haven't had that faith in him since the end of the Deadhouse Gates, so I tend to view claims of Erikson's meticulous plotting with extreme skepticism.

I think the fact Erikson's fans have coined the term "GoTMism" to hand wave away his inconsistencies between the first book and the rest of the series and adopted the mantra "the timeline does not matter" to address the train wreck that is continuity in the series speaks to Erikson's lack of skill when dealing with details. Neither of these things makes me think Erikson is doing a good job of plotting his series. I can't think of a single author that has been as inconsistent in their work as Erikson.

I'd be happy to discuss a lot of the specific plotting issues I have with the series (like just WTH was going on in Gardens of the Moon, what Tayschreen and Laseen are up to, what Shadowthrone and Cotillion's plan is, etc) because there are a lot of things that don't make sense to me and I'd love a good explanation for them but that would be pretty spoilerific so I'd prefer to do it in a more appropriate thread.


And I just want to point out that doing multiple drafts can certainly increase consistency between books. It just means the author has to actually read over his previous work and make modifications with those details in mind.[/quote]
Ditto.

[Lord of Rhinos]

[quote name='superkick' post='1660878' date='Jan 24 2009, 08.55']well tasyechren is jsut following laseens orders and doing what he feels is best for the empire, though it seems with how thigns were left in reapers gale that may not be the case for long, as for what laseens doing who knows besides tryign to run the empire, and what cotillion is shadowthrone are up to, i doubt we will fully know until the series is over. To give the short run of things.

Just because the full picture si there yet doesnt make it a plotting error, it just means erikson hasnt revealed the details behind what is going on yet, as he tends to have thigns happen and then not expain until much alter, but when you finally ahcieve that explanation it all makes sense. Its not really a plotting issue as much as its he doesnt want you to fully grasp it yet.[/quote]

Like I said, I don't want to get spoilerific about it on this thread, but much of the information given out seems directly contradictory. Events like the massacre at Aren, Shadowthrone and Cotillion's plans with Sorry, Laseen's actions as Empress, and the Battle at Pale all have competing narratives that don't make sense and have discrepancies that make finding the correct interpretation difficult. I'd love to see a sensible, logical sequence of events established but I don't think that is possible due to Erikson's sloppiness. However, I'd certainly like to be wrong about that, but once again this isn't the right thread for it.

[Horza]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1660810' date='Jan 25 2009, 01.58']But then again Tarant, have you ever read a series more ambitious than Malazan?[/quote]

Exactly what is ambitious about Malazan?

[Paxter]

[quote name='Horza' post='1661393' date='Jan 25 2009, 11.20']Exactly what is ambitious about Malazan?[/quote]

*takes a deep breath* Well, Horza, Malazan is supposed to be a 10,000 page epic with accompanying novels by Esslemont, short stories, an encyclopaedia, an incredibly complex plot and world with unique political structures, geography, cultures, religions, gods and demi-gods, races, empires, magical schools and cults, hundreds of thousands of years of history and mythology, literally hundreds of characters with no identifiable protagonist and many POVs.

I’m not for one second arguing that Erikson actually fulfils his ambitions 100%, but there can be no doubting that Malazan is one of the most ambitious fantasy projects ever undertaken. If Malazan doesn’t fit your bill for an ambitious fantasy series Horza, then I don’t know what does.

[Horza]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1661407' date='Jan 25 2009, 13.38']*takes a deep breath* Well, Horza, Malazan is supposed to be a 10,000 page epic with accompanying novels by Esslemont, short stories, an encyclopaedia, an incredibly complex plot and world with unique political structures, geography, cultures, religions, gods and demi-gods, races, empires, magical schools and cults, hundreds of thousands of years of history and mythology, literally hundreds of characters with no identifiable protagonist and many POVs.

I’m not for one second arguing that Erikson actually fulfils his ambitions 100%, but there can be no doubting that Malazan is one of the most ambitious fantasy projects ever undertaken. If Malazan doesn’t fit your bill for an ambitious fantasy series Horza, then I don’t know what does.[/quote]

Thank, Pax :P

I'd agree that it's an ambitious fantasy series - however in my book I don't think it's [i]ambitious [/i]per se.

Erickson [i]thinks [/i]he's being ambitious by having hundred of thousands of years of history, but most of his history consists of Big Badasses killing or imprisoning each other in warrens - in terms of actual history of cultures, society, ideas, etc virtually nada. Ditto 'unique political structures' - you've got the crappy didactic OMG Capitalizm of Lether, but everyone else is a warlord, nomad or Generic Fantasy Empire. His cultures are occaisionally well detailed, but so rarely do you hang around to see them work on an everyday level, for ordinary people. You know, the guys who aren't space elves, superassasins or Eleventy Warrens in One.

I've not really seen that much complexity - there's a lot of unexplained things going on but that's not complexity per se, it's Erickson's fear of exposition. He's got a million threads running along but that's 'complexity' by quantity, the actual relevance of many of them eludes me. Martin manages (so far) to juggle dozens of plotlines without recourse to 100,000 year old superbeings, magic dimensions and 'unique political structures' and yet remain complex; Erickson's world by contrast is a mile wide but an inch deep.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Horza' post='1662182' date='Jan 26 2009, 10.27']Erickson thinks he's being ambitious by having hundred of thousands of years of history[/quote]

I don't agree with this. Erikson [i]is[/i] being ambitious by having hundreds of years of history in Malazan - the very definition of ambition is to have a [i]desire[/i] for success; a strong feeling of [i]wanting[/i] to be successful in life and achieve great things. The problem is that Erikson just doesn't_fulfil_his "mile wide" desires/ambitions anywhere near as well as, say, GRRM. His Malazan series doesn't have the complexity and attention to detail of ASOIAF, no matter how much he wishes otherwise. But IMO that doesn't take away from the fact that Malazan is a very ambitious series. The lack of actual complexity and depth doesn't preclude the series from having great ambition.

Side-note: I'm not really sure why you are trying to point out to me that "I've not really seen that much complexity". I did say in my earlier post that "Malazan is [i]supposed[/i] to be a 10,000 page epic...with an incredibly complex plot...". I never actually said that I saw any actual complexity in the series myself.

[Gormenghast]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1662192' date='Jan 26 2009, 02.45']The problem is that Erikson just doesn't_fulfil_his "mile wide" desires/ambitions anywhere near as well as, say, GRRM.[/quote]
The problem is stating opinions as objective facts.

I disagree, I consider Martin much more successful because he's has easier to reach objectives and conventional themes. Martin is much less experimental and more conventional compared to Erikson. It's not a negative aspect, just the reason why it's much more accessible and successful.

In fantasy I've yet to find an author that deals with multiple layers and is as experimental as Erikson. There are writers that I love to read and that I consider exceptional (like Abercrombie) but I can't really say that Abercombie is ambitious or far reaching. In fact it's because they all write differently that I'm not bored with the genre.

[Larry.]

If you want layers and experimental prose, read M. John Harrison's [i]Viriconium[/i] then. It'll have all that well-covered ;)

[Paxter]

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1662225' date='Jan 26 2009, 11.25']The problem is stating opinions as objective facts.[/quote]

I apologise if I sounded as if I was stating fact there Gormenghast; there are many people on this board (including yourself) who believe that Erikson [i]does[/i] in fact fulfil his ambitions. So I shouldn't be making out that Erikson's "failure to deliver" is fact. Especially when the series is still incomplete and awaiting a world book that might clear up some of the confusion.

[quote name='Gormenghast' post='1662225' date='Jan 26 2009, 11.25']In fact it's because they all write differently that I'm not bored with the genre.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. I wouldn't want Malazan to have lower ambition, thus increasing it's accessibility and making it "more like Martin". Within-genre diversity is a good thing and keeps me coming back for more. If every fantasy series had the ambition of, say, the Shannara series, than I would be having problems picking my next series.

[Horza]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1662192' date='Jan 26 2009, 12.45']I don't agree with this. Erikson [i]is[/i] being ambitious by having hundreds of years of history in Malazan - the very definition of ambition is to have a [i]desire[/i] for success; a strong feeling of [i]wanting[/i] to be successful in life and achieve great things. The problem is that Erikson just doesn't_fulfil_his "mile wide" desires/ambitions anywhere near as well as, say, GRRM. His Malazan series doesn't have the complexity and attention to detail of ASOIAF, no matter how much he wishes otherwise. But IMO that doesn't take away from the fact that Malazan is a very ambitious series. The lack of actual complexity and depth doesn't preclude the series from having great ambition.

Side-note: I'm not really sure why you are trying to point out to me that "I've not really seen that much complexity". I did say in my earlier post that "Malazan is [i]supposed[/i] to be a 10,000 page epic...with an incredibly complex plot...". I never actually said that I saw any actual complexity in the series myself.[/quote]


Side-answer: Because you listed complexity as part of his ambitions and I'm going disagreeing that Malazan is that ambitious.

I guess I should say that I don't think writing a ~12 volume fantasy epic really counts as 'ambitious' these days. I mean, Goodkind's done it, Paolini's on his way - having thousands of characters on dozens of continents is almost par for the course. Erickson seems to think that it still is, and that his 12 volume epic is redefining the genre by having non-Western characters and settings and 100,000 year plotlines and the whole warren/ascendant/religion mess, despite the former being at least as old as LeGuin and the latter being a dime a dozen. When I think ambitious I think of stuff like [i]War and Peace[/i] or [i]Dhalgren[/i] - stuff that wrestles with history or narrative or culture etc,. You're right that Erickson aspires to those things but I'd argue the means by which he intends to realise that ambition should factor into wether it is ambitious. It may be totally unsupportable but otherwise I could write a novel about a pelican called 'Jimmy' making a sandwich and be called ambitious so long as I said I aspired to express grand human themes via my detailed examination of the bread texture.

[Larry.]

I dunno Horza, I mean Steve Erickson's [i]Arc d'X[/i] is quite complex and all... ;)

[Paxter]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1662255' date='Jan 26 2009, 12.11']I dunno Horza, I mean Steve Erickson's [i]Arc d'X[/i] is quite complex and all... ;)[/quote]

Nice one Dylanfanatic :lol:

But jokes aside, Horza, I do take your point that "the means by which he intends to realise that ambition should factor into whether it is ambitious". But at the end of the day, I still think that most people wouldn't have a problem in describing Malazan as ambitious. It's not your typical fantasy series that "aims low" by copying LOTR or Dune. In any case I don't think that we're ever going to agree on this one Horza, so I think we should leave it here. Interesting discussion though ;).

[Horza]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1662255' date='Jan 26 2009, 14.11']I dunno Horza, I mean Steve Erickson's [i]Arc d'X[/i] is quite complex and all... ;)[/quote]

Doh. I don't know why I keep doing that... :dunce: