Gardens of the Moon

[Bittersteel]

So...following the advice of many on this board, I just purchased Gardens of the Moon and (before I get too involved) I have one very important question: does the writing improve? I'm about forty pages in and, thus far, Erikson's prose has been dreadful. It doesn't even compare with Bakker's work in the Prince of Nothing or Martin's in A Song of Ice and Fire. To be honest, I can't help but wonder at Erikson's claim to a degree from Iowa's Creative Writing Workshop, given his (rather lamentable) writing ability.

ANYWAYS...

This is not a question about plot. I like the plot just fine, thank you very much. Nor is it a comparison to Bakker's work. I just want to know if what everybody says about storyline (that it improves as the series progresses) also applies to writing. Does it get better? 'Cus, if there isn't a marked improvement in prose by the next book, I am not interested in continuing.

[Fiddler's Green]

IMO, it does get better in Deadhouse Gates (which I just finished) but it isn't anywhere near the level of Martin or Bakker. I found DG to be MUCH more readable than GotM and much easier to follow. As for getting better in GotM, not particularly, from my recollection.

[Seven Pointed Star]

Right there with ya, Bittersteel. I finished Gardens a few days ago, also going on recs from the board, and while I found the world, most of the characters and the plot interesting, the writing itself was not up the standard that I had been led to expact by all the strong encomiums.

Several posts in the E vs B thread did indicate that it gets better in books 2 & 3 (& beyond, although not yet available in the US without paying for international shipping), and a few that disputed this, saying there's no improvement.

[RaceBannon42]

Well some would claim that if you don't like Erickson , Its because you arent a sophisticated enough reader.

I on the other hand would say that its because some people have different tastes.

I didnt much care for GoTM. I gave DHG a read and didnt care all that much for it either.

Just not my cup of tea.

[Werthead]

I found the writing very bitty at the start of Gardens of the Moon, but things improve once the plot reaches Darujhistan. There is a major leap forward in the quality of the writing between GotM and Deadhouse Gates (which was written 8 years later and after Erikson had written two other mainstream books) and another leap forward between Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice (the best book in the series to date). But Erikson's prose is pretty unremarkable. He has some good dialogue (internal and external) but generally I'd say his appeal was in the worldbuilding and his highly original way of writing the series, being self-contained but building towards something bigger, and the fact you can even read the books in a different order to the publication one.

[Seven Pointed Star]

Well some would claim that if you don't like Erickson , Its because you arent a sophisticated enough reader.

Yeah, I saw that charge in the B vs E thread. I know you're not advocating it here.

I guess it's only unsophisticated readers who are disappointed by encountering dialog along the lines of 'Just do what I say, dammit!" and 'Dammit, we need to get out of here!'.

I'm willing to read Deadhouse Gates, in the hope that the writing is indeed better - that there is a little more internal access to what characters are feeling or thinking about, and that there aren't so many 'tell' instead of 'show' moments. I really want to see how the story develops but if Gates doesn't grab me, there's just no way I am going to be able to slog through the many, many pages of Book 3, never mind 4-10 (once they're all written).

[werewolfv2]

Well some would claim that if you don't like Erickson , Its because you arent a sophisticated enough reader.

*yawn* that statement right there is what tends to be the problem with some readers.

reading comprehension doesn't exactly equate sophistication.

[Padraig]

Ahhh...so they claim that if you don't like Erikson its because you are not clever enough to understand it?

[caladanbrood]

I've never understood how you can't "understand" a book like that anyway. Not enjoy, certainly. Be confused by, very possibly. But what actually constitutes not "understanding" the book?

[Galactus]

The writing definately gets better in Deadhouse Gates. The dialogue (external and internal) still isn't exactly shining, but it's servicable enough, and some of the descriptions are really good.

[Slick Mongoose]

Ahhh...so they claim that if you don't like Erikson its because you are not clever enough to understand it?

Who's "they"?

And the writing does improve, yes.

[john]

It improves, but it's still mostly rubbish, and nowhere near the level of Bakker or Martin.

I wouldn't say that getting a creative writing degree means you are a good writer, but Erikson does have other things to recommend him.

[Galactus]

One thing that annoys me is him naming the elite formation the "Malazan Marines".

Thus far they don't seem to actually *be* marines, in any sense of the word.

[Xanrn]

Well I like Erikson, he is my favourite Fantasy Author.

I see nothing wrong with the writing, but then again I am don't see that Bakker is as brilliant as some people claim, I find Erikson and Martin much more enjoyable.

[Jerol]

I'm Dagger and I'm an Erikson addict. It's been 2 months since my last Erikson...and DAMM!T I NEED MORE!

In terms of dialogue, I wouldn't compare him to Martin but that's not what you read him for. It's the world-building, the characters, the various races, the huge 100,000 year back story that reveals itself in tiny shreds, the fact that like Martin he will kill off a major character when you least expect it. His characters are sort of like Glen Cook's, more "grunts" than nobility. In fact, the nobility class is almost obliterated by the Malazan Empire.

Gardens of the Moon is probably the hardest book in the series to get into. The writing is OK, there is absolutely no exposition (a trait that I absolutely adore), and there's a dozen different plot threads with no sign of any of them getting together. But it all does eventually. And for those that have read all of the Malazan series, then going back to GotM, you realize that he's dropped all kinds of hints of the bigger themes that are only now being revealed.

And Deadhouse Gates, the second book, doesn't do anyone any favors either. He shifts to an entirely different continent, with few remaining characters from GoTM, and again, the plot threads do not seem like they will come together. But they do. And the Chain of Dogs plot ends in a way that will break your heart. And by then you should be hooked just in time for Memories of Ice, which brings you back to the the GotM characters, or what's left of them. And then you're forced to go to Amazon.Canada to get House of Chains just to find out how the threads in DG are going to end.

To me, Erikson and Martin are the two best things going in fantasy right now. I will not tolerate the insipid Jordan or Goodkind, (I won't read Bakker until the third book is in paperback) and the rest to me just seem like hacks playing in Tolkien's attic. I usually read hard s/f, mystery, or just straight literature, having given up on fantasy long ago. Cook's Black Company (the first three) were the ones that really brought me back, Martin and Erikson were my redemption. I cannot think of two fantasy writers that have given me more joy since JRR himself.

If you read GoTM and it wasn't your cup of tea, maybe it truly isn't your thing. But for those of you who haven't read it and are getting turned off by some of the negative posts I urge you to give it a try. The Malazan books is one of the wildest, most involved series in speculative fiction. And one other good thing about Erikson, the books come out on a regular basis!

[werewolfv2]

Well I like Erikson, he is my favourite Fantasy Author.

I see nothing wrong with the writing, but then again I am don't see that Bakker is as brilliant as some people claim, I find Erikson and Martin much more enjoyable.

ditto, his style of writing is very refreshing. yup GotM has its issues but its still in its raw form almost as good as Martin and Bakker. With Deadhouse and then MoI he plows ahead of them .

In my short list Erikson is on top with Martin & Bakker still in a battle for 2nd (gotta read Feast and TT)

[Rhaegar's Son]

I wouldn't say that getting a creative writing degree means you are a good writer, but Erikson does have other things to recommend him.

A degree from Iowa (the best program in the world) should mean that the individual is a good writer. Does anyone know if he attended before or after GotM?

On topic, I'd tell the original poster to read DG to see if the writing improves enough. Personally, I was willing to accept the writing by the end of the first book because of the great plot and fun characters. Also, as noted earlier, GotM will seem infinitely better on a reread after tackling the rest of the series.

[Brys]

I think there's no doubt that he improves after Gardens of the Moon - there was an 8 year gap in which he honed his writing skills. And his prose at least has continued to improve throughout. Ok, so it's never as good as Mervyn Peake's, or Jeff Vandermeer's, or Gene Wolfe's. But I think by Midnight Tides, it's as good as Martin's (which I don't rate that highly - its not bad, but nothing special IMO).

But then, I never found the prose particularly bad either. I read epic fantasy for the other aspects, and with Erikson, particularly for the plot and worldbuilding. No one in epic fantasy writes spectacular prose IMO (though I admit Erikson's dialogue isn't nearly as good as Martin's for the most part - though I'd argue that Erikson is better at description than Martin in the later books), with the possible exception of Bakker, and I'm wondering exactly what the problem is people have with his prose. It's not nearly as painful as Jordan's, or Edding's etc, and there are few moments where it's clearly worse than A Feast for Crows.

I'd agree with werewolfv2's placing of the three authors for epic fantasy - Erikson's just on top, Martin and Bakker are pretty much equal second, though in terms of writing quality Bakker's easily the best, Martin's next and Erikson's a little below Martin overall.

[Galactus]

I think my main problems with Eriksson is A) His names. Seriously, they bother me. A lot. It's a tiny, tiny little thing that just somehow grates on my eyeballs every time I open a new page. The Marines are a part of this of course, but not all of it.

The entire "soldieryness" of the thing. It annoys me mightily. Heck, I find the characters who are "outside" the army in one way or another wy more interesting than all the cloned soldiers. Whiskeyjack was, at least in GOTM, a total "competent sergeant" cliché. He might get better in later books though.

That said, the world-building is indeed excellent and the plot is serviceable, although I've yet (2nd half of Deadhouse Gates) to have any "Oh Shit!" moments, like Ned's death.

I guess they're coming though, but thus far it is definately good, but not excellent by any means.

[Werthead]

There are two big, big 'OS!' moments in the series, at the end of Deadhouse Gates and again at the end of Memories of Ice, although the power of the former is let down by a truly stupid moment of inconsistent characterisation a few pages later. There are a few other good moments scattered around the series, particularly in Midnight Tides, but for me House of Chains was the weakest book in the sequence. The plot elements all felt very disconnected from one another and the primary plot thread's resolution was unsatisfying. There is certainly nothing in the series that imparts the emotional power of the Red Wedding, although the Siege of Capustan and its resolution in MoI comes close.

According to those who've read them, though, The Bonehunters and the first half of Reaper's Gale return to the intensity and power of Memories of Ice with a vengeance. Only 5 weeks to go...