So I just read the first Malazan book

[Relic]

If thers no love theres no love, no sense in complaining about it.

Wise words. Think about em.

[paran]

QUOTE (Arthmail @ Nov 16 2009, 23.08) *

If thers no love theres no love, no sense in complaining about it.

Wise words. Think about em

.

haha! classic! sorry, couldn't help myself...

Anyway, looking forward to the Crippled God. Have to say I loved all the SE books, with 6 + 7 being the toughest as they didn't seem quite self-contained. Book 8 was great in a different way, and very rewarding at the end. I have to say that I've enjoyed the ride immensely, and await it's conclusion with excitement.

[Padraig]

I really thought most of you would have gotten bored bashing a series you don't even read anymore.

:lol: You'd think. But then how long has the anti-tWoT bashing lasted?

[Gormenghast]

It's quite curious that on one side people complain that Erikson wastes time in every possible tangent and multiple plots, while on the other side they complain he doesn't do it enough to give closure to every little tangent and minor character.

[Kalbear]

As a side note, I keep seeing the same people posting the same stuff in these Erikson threads. I really thought most of you would have gotten bored bashing a series you don't even read anymore.

Like you with BSG? Just curious.

The reason that it gets bashed over and over again isn't just because people are dicks. It's also because the topics are of the line "Should I read Malazan?" or "This reviewer who gets schwag from reviewing the books says that it's good...is it?"

There aren't many topics talking about the Malazan series (or they don't start that way) - they start by asking whether or not you should. And let's face it - a lot of people regret reading them at all.

[Zach H]

If you're a fan of something, it shouldn't matter what other people say. I admit that some of the Erikson criticism around here can be a bit eye-rolling to me, but I don't let any outside opinion interfere with my enjoyment of the books. We all have our tastes. I know there are some extremely popular books on this board that I find barely readable at best.

For now I'll just say that the scattershot style of Erikson is something that I appreciate about his work. I don't read him to find out who is planning what and why, I read him because I love his ongoing style of "civilization is screwed, but in the meantime let's take a look at some indifferent marines, or some hopeless wanderers, or some crazy monster fights, or some lengthy philosophizing interspersed with terse humor."

[Jon Sprunk]

I'm only about a hundred pages into GotM, but so far I am enjoying Erikson's style.

[Relic]

Like you with BSG? Just curious.

Haha. You're like my own personal stalker, making sure i know just how much of a hypocrite i can be. Be careful that i dont start returning the favor :P . Anyway, its sort of the same but not really.

[Arthmail]

Wise words. Think about em.

Did you miss the point of the thread? The OP came on discussing pros and cons, and some of us came on to discuss the same thing. I admitted to both liking and disliking the book, and i have yet to see any complaining, mostly disappointment with how the books have turned out. If you read any fucking thread about a series of books, you see the exact same thing as you see here, so i'm not sure why your horse has grown so high, but these Lit forums would be pretty dead without this sort of discussion. What you don't normally see is people coming on railing against how no one gives one of their favorite authors any love.

But if you wish to continue to be smarmy, by all means. Though it looks like you got called out for it.

[Relic]

But if you wish to continue to be smarmy, by all means. Though it looks like you got called out for it.

Huh? So my "smarm" trumps your snark? whatever. What's with all the anger?

Either way you gotta admit your words were ironic.

[Shryke]

Don't forget that not all the people who "bash" the series have stopped reading it. I still read it, and enjoy quite a bit of it. But that doesn't been I'm not gonna blast it for it's failings.

It's quite curious that on one side people complain that Erikson wastes time in every possible tangent and multiple plots, while on the other side they complain he doesn't do it enough to give closure to every little tangent and minor character.

Except it's not "every tangent and minor character", it's "every major plotline and major character".

[blackzoid]

Don't forget that not all the people who "bash" the series have stopped reading it. I still read it, and enjoy quite a bit of it. But that doesn't been I'm not gonna blast it for it's failings.

Except it's not "every tangent and minor character", it's "every major plotline and major character".

Ah now, thats unfair. He does not give closure to All of his major plotlines and major characters, but he does give closure to a lot of them.

Kallor and Karsa are possibly the only 2 major characters that he will not give closure to.

The Tyrant Kings return to Darujhistan and Karsa's rampage against civilisation are the 2 storylines in question. Thats it.

Assail/Silverfox was always out of his jurisdiction. Her story was done in Memories of Ice and aside from hints about the continent, it was obvious that Erikson was never going to go there.

I guess you could make the point that Retrun of the Crimson Guard should have been an Erikson book seeing as its almost a sequel to The Bonehunters, but thats a different argument.

[williamjm]

A lot of plot threads came together, sure, and some stuff was resolved (but not that much). But a lot of the plot threads that Erikson is drawing together is stuff that's also relatively recent in the series. The 'oldest' plot threads addressed in the book (such as Tavore's plans) go back no further than House of Chains

There is also a lot about the Barghast (and Tool), which follows directly from Memories of Ice.

[Nerdanel]

I haven't read DoD yet, but I would be surprised if Kallor's storyline wasn't resolved or semi-resolved (as in, he's still alive, but a phase in his life is over) within the last two books. After all, Kallor has a position in High House Chains and the Crippled God problem IS expected to be resolved within that span. Kallor is also one of the better swordsmen around even if he doesn't reach the very top level (at least in his current state; I can think more than one way to improve on that) and has a lot of experience in warfare that could be useful.

Narrative logistics:

SPOILER: RotCG

In RotG we learn that the Crippled God can teleport Kallor around so being on the wrong continent doesn't have to be a problem.

By the way, I also think Kallor and Fisher...

SPOILER: RotCG concept

...are parts of the same human D'ivers. RotCG shows that even though the parts of a D'ivers look identical they can contain different aspects of the original personality and can even work against each other. I won't go into a long discussion as this is pretty much a tangent.

I think that kind of thing ties well with certain themes Erikson has been developing in MBotF, making it a natural thing to include if it's indeed true. Also, I think Kallor is an awesome character. He really came into his own in TtH.

[williamjm]

I haven't read DoD yet, but I would be surprised if Kallor's storyline wasn't resolved or semi-resolved (as in, he's still alive, but a phase in his life is over) within the last two books. After all, Kallor has a position in High House Chains and the Crippled God problem IS expected to be resolved within that span. Kallor is also one of the better swordsmen around even if he doesn't reach the very top level (at least in his current state; I can think more than one way to improve on that) and has a lot of experience in warfare that could be useful.

He gets the occasional mention but doesn't appear in person at all in DoD. I agree it would be logical for him to show up in the last book.

By the way, I also think Kallor and Fisher...

SPOILER: RotCG concept

...are parts of the same human D'ivers. RotCG shows that even though the parts of a D'ivers look identical they can contain different aspects of the original personality and can even work against each other. I won't go into a long discussion as this is pretty much a tangent.

Why do you think there might be a connection between the two of them? I can't see anything to connect them.

Also, I think Kallor is an awesome character. He really came into his own in TtH.

I would say he is one of the more memorable (and dislikeable) antagonists in the series, particularly after TtH (not that he really does a huge amount in TtH but he does get more characterisation than in the previous books).

[Nerdanel]

He gets the occasional mention but doesn't appear in person at all in DoD. I agree it would be logical for him to show up in the last book.

If he's getting mentioned repeatedly then that definitely suggests he's going to reappear.

Why do you think there might be a connection between the two of them? I can't see anything to connect them.

I think I'd better spoiler the whole thing for safety:

SPOILER: Kallor and Fisher

First there is the physical similarities. As far as I remember, are tall, thin, and old-looking with long gray hair. I don't recall any differences in that regard. Both are also far better fighters than you might expect and appear to have been around for a very long time indeed.

Then, Fisher says at one point that there is no god of poetry and I'm inclined to believe him due to the utter lack of evidence for such while a slew of other gods has been mentioned. Since gods all have some relation to the concepts they represent, Fisher could hardly be the god of anything but poetry. This in turn implies that he isn't a god, so he must be a non-god Ascendant or a non-Ascendant who happens to be immortal and hangs around with gods and Ascendants, like Kallor. Fisher being affected by the same never-Ascend curse as Kallor would explain a lot.

Personalitywise, Kallor and Fisher are very different indeed. Kallor is full of ambition but he remarks to himself that he doesn't have any poetical ability while Fisher the great poet lacks personal ambition and plays the role of a humble bard. Kallor is the doer, Fisher the observer. If you added their personalities together the result would be more rounded and balanced than either alone.

Then in RotCG, Kallor in his sole appearance gets run through with a sword but isn't particularly harmed by it. Also in RotCG, perhaps meant as an intentional echo, Ho suffers similar damage when his chest is impaled by a piece of wood and he neither is particularly harmed. Soon after that Ho is revealed to be part of a human D'ivers and to benefit from the additional durability of such.

There are legends of human D'ivers before Ho, and being as old and widely-traveled as he is, Kallor would have heard of the process, and as a person with a habit of ending up ruling empires, he would have been able to afford the magical research.

Reasons for Kallor to become a human D'ivers:

- Health benefits

- Cutting off the "weak" parts of his personality, so that he could be more ruthless

- The possibility that his curse might be sidestepped if the Kallor that got cursed no longer existed as such

What about the century candles then? My explanation is that while D'ivers are innately immortal, Kallor wouldn't have wanted others to know the secret of his long life. I think Kallor used the century candles so that subtle enemies would hit at his supply of those, tipping their hand without actually threatening Kallor's immortality. That would mean that Kallor was consuming a product made from trapped human souls solely for a potential strategic advantage, but I don't think that would be too evil for him.

Well, I like wild theories. :)

I would say he is one of the more memorable (and dislikeable) antagonists in the series, particularly after TtH (not that he really does a huge amount in TtH but he does get more characterisation than in the previous books).

TtH upgraded Kallor from a flat villain to a really interesting character. I also think he can be really funny, which naturally makes me like him more.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Your theory is interesting, but...

SPOILER: stuff

The stuff about the century candles prolonging life comes from a Kallor POV in Memories of Ice, where he specifically mentions how it gives him a hundred years of further vitality.

Also, there is no mention in any Kallor POV of anything hinting at him being a D'ivers.

Experience within the Malazan world shows us a lot of random Ascendants and quasi-Ascendants wandering around for no particular reason or explanation, Edgewalker being the foremost in my mind. There's no reason why Fisher would be anything other than this.

Fisher also could be half-Andii, which would explain his martial prowess and long life as well as his interest in the Andii. His physical appearance doesn't seem to corroborate this on first thought, but if we think back, the only other Tiste half-breed we've encountered is the High Mage from Shaik's army, and he looked completely human despite his father being Osserc.

Also, just as a nitpick, one of your arguments for a relationship being Fisher and Kallor is that they have different personalities :lol: - I see your point but I think it's tough to argue that two things are related because they're so different.

[Ser Nevarc]

Has anyone here read Malazan Book of the Fallen or at least the first book? I am sure that there are quite a few, you being such a well-read crew. In short, I am considering reading Gardens of the Moon and would like to know if you think it is a worthwhile series.

I enjoy Fantasy and Historical Fiction, but like my Fantasy epic and with limited magic. Obviously a fan of ASOIAF.

Any spoiler-free comments would be well appreciated.

Thanks!

[williamjm]

Has anyone here read Malazan Book of the Fallen or at least the first book? I am sure that there are quite a few, you being such a well-read crew. In short, I am considering reading Gardens of the Moon and would like to know if you think it is a worthwhile series.

I enjoy Fantasy and Historical Fiction, but like my Fantasy epic and with limited magic. Obviously a fan of ASOIAF.

Any spoiler-free comments would be well appreciated.

Thanks!

I think this question is asked about once a fortnight on average. Malazan is certainly epic (probably more epic than any other series) but I'd never describe it as low magic, there are huge magical battles as early as the first couple of chapters and there are so many super-powerful sorcerers in the series I've probably forgotten some of them by now. It isn't really much like ASOIAF, I'd say Martin is in many ways a better writer. That said, at its best I did really enjoy some of the Malazan series and the second and third books in particular are excellent fantasy novels. Unfortunately book 6 onwards starts to head downhill a bit, there are still good bits here and there but I did find it increasingly tedious at times.

[Horza]

Yes, I'd advise a search for "Malazan" in the Literature forum. We do a lot of Malazan threads (though if you've read one you've read them all).

My personal experience was that I enjoyed the first three books - they were mysterious and complex and clunky in parts but I was intrigued enough to continue but my interest gradually started to flag through books four and five as threads were unresolved, more and more stuff was added and characters just accumulated rather than gain depth and definition, to the point where I didn't care what happened to any of them and couldn't see an end in sight, round book six.