Gardens of the Moon

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Well, not all of them are so unsophisticated. just look here:

http://www.pinkpornstars.com/

Aurora Snow does seem positively Martinish name, doesn't it? Some others also wouldn't seem out of place in Westeros.

And apparently there are also Deny and Breanne

Of cours itis subjective, but I think Martin does have tendency to overly prettified, sexy sounding female names, and I found it a little bit annoying.

As for what names would be good, it is really tough question. depends on the environment, i guess. I don't mindd many Martin's names, as, for example Catelyn Stark, or Targaryen names( but those are foreign sounding). Erikson has some awful names,, but I think Dunsparrow and Felisin Paran are perfect for, respectively, lowborn and nobleborn woman. Andrzej Sapkowski has somevery good names, for example Filippa Eilhart , but OTOH, Yennefer is as much a howler as Myranda.

[Galactus]

Come on; Ashara Dayne, Lyanna Stark, Jeyne Westerling, Myranda Royce, Arwyn Oakheart, Jennelyn Fowler, Meredyth Crane, Arianne Martell, Roslyn Frey, even Lysa Arryn or Genna Lannister, incongruos as it seems, all those sound to me as pseudonyms of actresses playing in dubious films or, at best, authors of Harlequin romances.

Maybe it's just me, but a lot of those don't bother me simply because I'm used to nobles having "thing names" (generally descriptions of their COA)

I'm up to Memories of Ice on my re-read and the jump in quality of the writing from the first two books to the third seems quite pronounced, much more so than when I read the series first-time through. There's some great stuff going on, although Erikson's love of interminable internal dialogue (particularly with Paran in the early MoI chapters) is still a problem. Erikson does have a nice line in humour as well, such as Toc offering (sarcastically) to strike dramatic poses against the sunset for Lady Envy's amusement or Tool's increasingly difficult duels against the Seguleh desperate to prove themselves in battle with a T'lan Imass.

The names I thought were stupid the first time round as well, but second time I noted that the Malazan soldiers seem to have some kind of formal system of picking nicknames which they are known by. Quick Ben, Whiskeyjack, Fiddler, Hedge, Antsy, Gruntle etc are all based on the person's characteristics (although the only time I remember Fiddler's fiddle actually being mentioned was in the prologue to Gardens of the Moon). This is stupid on one level (is it possible to have 100,000 seperate descriptive nicknames?) but at least makes more sense than them just having those names from birth.

Erikson's dialogue improves from book to book. But nowhere does he equal Martin's more memorable moments (such as pretty much anything said by Tyrion). Erikson I feel occasionally drifts into the trap of giving many characters 'the author's voice' so many characters become indistinguishable from one another. For example, many characters say something along the lines "There's one on the Seven Cities continent," or "We could annex half this continent". I don't know about you, but I don't often say, "My aunt lives on the Australasian continent" or "I would like to visit the African continent one day" in everyday conversation. It's similar to something that Jack Vance did a lot (every character, from kings to stableboys, is gifted in witty repartee), but in Vance's case it was more forgivable because it was generally pretty funny.

Yeah, i think that's something of a problem (thus far) for me.

I'm seriously having trouble keeping people apart (Kalam and Fiddler seems basically identical at this point, oh yes, they *do* different things but they don't seem do *think* differently)

Also it feels like a lot of character concepts where.... Wasted? Duiker could have been interesting, but instead he became just another generic soldier and observer of the plot (which, admittedly, is good)

[Werthead]

Duiker has an interesting arc throughout Deadhouse Gates and for me he was an interesting character. I won't say anything else but some serious stuff goes down at the end of DHG with Duiker in the middle of it (although you've probably already guessed that).

The Bridgeburners kind of fade into one another. Kalam is seperate because of his assassin and Claw skills, Quick Ben because of his magery, but the rest do keep blending together. Fiddler is seperate to a certain extent because he's seperated from the rest of the Bridgeburners by distance but his attitude and personality is not massively different from Hedge or Picker or the rest. Being told someone's a healer or a wizard who drives animals insane whenever he uses his warren or a sapper with a prediliction for blowing things up is no substitute for good, solid, characterisation. Of course, if we had in-depth characterisation for every character in the MBF, the series would consist of 20 2,000-page long volumes, so you can't have everything in life.

Many of the main characters are drawn in-depth, although Ganoes and to a far greater extent Felisin become so mind-bogglingly irritating and whiny that you find yourself rooting for Tavore the most out of the whole family as she just gets on with stuff and doesn't moan incessantly. Whiskeyjack, Anomander Rake, Caladan Brood (although the latter two frequently come across as rejects from the Final Fantasy games, they do get some great lines), Kallor, Trull Sengar, Toc the Younger, Tool, Duiker, Coltaine and Dujek are all great characters but you never feel you're truly in their heads like Martin manages with his characters.

[Ormond]

Erikson has some awful names,, but I think Dunsparrow and Felisin Paran are perfect for, respectively, lowborn and nobleborn woman.

Isn't it fascinating how tastes and perceptions differ! I would never think Dunsparrow and Felisin Paran are prefect for two women, because my first impression of both of them is that I would have expected characters with those names to be male, not female!

[Durckad]

And as someone noted just above, Erikson is addictive. You end up thinking about this stuff A LOT after you're done, especially MoI and MT. There is so much detail and backstory hidden in between the lines and he's only getting better at it. Go over and read the threads at the Malazan Empire forum, there's fans there that have read these books through a few times now and are still discovered details they've missed or are just understanding after hashing it out on the boards. And obviously that's something that Martin does to a person too, as evidenced on this board.

I know that's the way it was with me.

I finished GotM, brushed it off as being 'okay' and then just let it stew about in my head for a week or so. Afterwards, I rushed to amazon.com and imported DHG, MoI, and HoC. I was subsequently let down by DHG.

[Eloth]

Martin certainly beats Erikson (and almost everybody else) on description. I love his long descriptive passages. Erikson never describes anything and it is rather annoying. What Seren Pedac looks like? What is color of Karsa Orlong's hair? We don't know, and those are fairly major characters. He also needed several volumes to mention simple fact that Quick Ben and Iskaral Pust are black.

It’s simply a matter of preference in what and how one likes to read. I hate long descriptive passages, they frustrate and bore me. I prefer to flesh things out in my own imagination, especially after being given the impression that the Edur are a handsome race, and then looking at the uglies on the front cover of Midnight Tides!

As for taking several volumes to mention what Quick Ben looks like… in GotM (chapter 2) the first time we come across QB he is described as a tall thin black-skinned man. As with Iskaral Pust in DG (Chapter 2), the first time he is introduced - a large hawk nose, tufts of wiry grey beard, a tattooed bald pate and skin like dark honey.

With regards to names, most of the Bridgeburners and others in the various army units have nicknames, a fairly common practice amongst both soldiers, comrades and others who spend a long time in each others company. I seem to recall Fiddler reminiscing on how the practice came about in HoC – anyone who’s read that far will know the passage.

I also find it interesting that the names Dunsparrow and Felisin Paran are used as examples of female names, when the first does not appear until the Bonehunters, and assuredly without having read it and met the character, cannot give any indication of gender, low-born or otherwise.

As others have done, I started GotM, read half way through, put it down, came back to it and re-read to the end. It's not the easiest read or best-written and will never be, but I'm glad I did. The scope and complexity of Erikson's Tale captures my imagination in a way nothing else has done

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Well, I must admit I have missed both Quick Ben and Iskaral Pust descriptions at this point. (ANd Karsa's hair color is emntioned in TBH). Nevertheless my point still stands, Erikson seriously underdescribes his characters and settings. Of course some readers like it, but I am not one of them - since I never visualize anything, I prefer to have such things spelled black on white.

I am strongly partial to meaningful, nickname type names, since they were common in medieval ages in my country and therefore they are often seen in historical novels and by extension in fantasy written in my language. Someone called Dunsparrow, or even Tattersail, sounds perfectly natural to me, at least in quasi-medieval setting.

[caladanbrood]

Ah, but Malazan isn't a medieval world. Thank god. It's more advanced than that. I hate medieval settings in general. Only Martin's awe-inspiring talent made me enjoy aSoIaF. Thats why I prefered Fevre Dream.

[Galactus]

I finished Deadhouse Gates: My verdict? Decent, but not too impressive.

I'll keep reading the series mainly because I've got nothing better to do

*spoilers*

I must say the end of Chain of Dogs felt... Like a bit of a cop-out, yeah, they all died, but since Coltaine made it out (sort of) I can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed (It does seem like he is gathering powerful people as reborn thoguh....)

I liked Laseen's development from essentially evil antagonist in GOTM to something a lot more ambigious in DHG. I find myslef totally confused visavi the Aptoran and the children. WTF?

Overall I'd rate it slightly below Hobb & Williams, far below Martin, Bakker & Mieville and a bit above Jordan.

[Mme Erzulie]

I'll chime in with some of my thoughts.

I'm half-way through GotM at the moment and so far it's a pretty mixed affair - I think the biggest complaint I have is that at the beginning you're dropped into a world with no real explanations and a vast array of characters (some of whom are gods!) with rather silly names all running around with very few connecting streams. The nature of magic is also a bit confusing - at first I thought Warrens were a form of magical transportation only, for example.

I think this is a really enlightening post. I remember feeling the exact same thing at that stage in the book. It was really like being dropped into a world. Without meaning to sound condescending, I think many feel that the prose is bad because Erikson is deliberately withholding information and not explaining everything to death from the get-go. This annoyed me a bit, but at the same time, it was a refreshing break from info-dumping. You're kept in the dark about a lot of things, but you just have to trust Erikson to shed light on it, eventually. I got a couple of hundred pages left on MoI now, and while reading, I'm constantly getting answers to questions that have been hovering in my mind. "Oh, so that's what the Moranth really are!"

He does get much better, Midnight Tides, the latest book is fairly well written, almost on par with Martin I'd say, though his descriptions still leave a lot to be desired.

This is a point I don't get. I don't think Martin's prose is anything spectacular. I think his strength lies in his character building, plot, pace and action. Martin, too, I think, is guilty of info-dumping and over-explaining, although he does it more elegantly than most others. Almost every time he mentions a character, he also mentions that character's special trait. It gets a bit too much for my taste. I think Erikson has made a conscious decision to make you "work out" some of the characters by yourself.

Now, about dialogue. I think Erikson does this much more realistic than Martin. What you seem to think realistic is where every line is witty, clever, well thought out and eloquent. Now, whether realistic dialogue is desirable is another discussion. Also, every person on earth does not have a unique speaking style. People who are close and spend much time together and have similar background, will speak relatively similar. And just because Erikson doesn't point them out to you, doesn't mean that there aren't subtle differences between the characters.

I find Erikson's biggest weakness is the evoking of emotions in the reader. It seems he has to explain to us how sad something is or how shocked we should be now. It's often not clear on its own. This is a definite problem with his writing. I've only had one emotionally laden moment so far, and that was at the end of DG.

As for the names bit, aside from a few (Surly... Surly?), I have no real problems with Erikson... or Bakker, who also seems to get a lot of shit for his overuse of the umlaut and really, long and complicated names.

Erikson's names grows on you, in my experience. Still don't like the old race names. K'chain Che'malle, T'lan Imass, it just sounds too... forced.

[Lupigis]

Erikson's names grows on you, in my experience. Still don't like the old race names. K'chain Che'malle, T'lan Imass, it just sounds too... forced.

Glottal stops are evil! It is known.

They are also quite useless. I'll bet 90% of the readers don't know what those apostrophes mean, and that 90% of those who do know do their best to ignore them (I belong in this category).

[Bittersteel]

I guess, reading back, that my major complaint is Erikson's inability to write realistic dialogue - he seems to feel this urge to communicate information via ordinary conversation, and it just doesn't work. Consider...

"I don't even think Tayschrenn's arts are enough to save you, Hairlock."

Two lines down...

"Are you certain? You're saying it isn't over yet. Your hatred of our High Mage is enough to let you slip Hood's cold grasp, is that it?"

Sooo amateurish. Cringe-inducing. And again...

Calot grinned. "Laseen's High Mage couldn't read a battle map if his life depended upon it."

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Now, about dialogue. I think Erikson does this much more realistic than Martin. What you seem to think realistic is where every line is witty, clever, well thought out and eloquent. Now, whether realistic dialogue is desirable is another discussion. Also, every person on earth does not have a unique speaking style. People who are close and spend much time together and have similar background, will speak relatively similar. And just because Erikson doesn't point them out to you, doesn't mean that there aren't subtle differences between the characters.

You're wrong. Erikson's characters sound like a bunch of roleplaying buddies, playing at being kickass warriors in a fantasy world. There's no information hidden in their diction, and it is in no way a product of their world. Martin on the other hand, is a master both at distinguishing characters by giving them subtly different voices and by giving us information regarding the characters and their world by letting their diction be shaped by their personality and situation. When Erikson tries to give his characters distinguishable voices, we end of with people like Kruppe, and as entertaining as he can be, he hardly speaks in a realistic voice.

I would also question your assertion that all of Martins characters are witty and eloquent; sure, there are such characters, but I would hardly call say, Samwell or Brienne witty. I would actually say that this is a bigger problem with Erikson.

The more I read of ASoIaF, ther more respect I have for Martin's craft. I could just name two fantasy writers who do realistic dialogue better than Martin, and they are Avram Davidson and Gene Wolfe.

[werewolfv2]

I must say the end of Chain of Dogs felt... Like a bit of a cop-out, yeah, they all died, but since Coltaine made it out (sort of) I can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed (It does seem like he is gathering powerful people as reborn thoguh....)

.

I belive Erikson has said that Coltaine wont be around again.. and even if he were what good would an infant be?

[Galactus]

I belive Erikson has said that Coltaine wont be around again.. and even if he were what good would an infant be?

Not much, admittedly. And if he *isn't* going to appear again why go to the trouble of resurrecting/reincarnating him *at all*? Coltaine was an interesting character I thought, but he (kind of) made it out, all the other characters were pretty much interchangeable....

Seriously, Eriksson does some stuff good, characterization is not one of them. Still a decent series though, but it's not amazing by any means. I loved some of the battle-descriptions (though the sappers' antics felt a bit forced at times) Icarium and Mappo was kind of interesting, and I find both Shadowthrone and Laseen fascinating. The rest of the characters in DHG were kind of .... Meh. Though.

[Werthead]

About 300 pages into the Memories of Ice re-read and I'm frankly astonished at how much better-written it is than DHG. Maybe it's the fact we're back with people we know so Erikson doesn't need to do so much introducing of ideas and concepts, or the straightforward way the story moves from the caravan guards to the Bridgeburners and their allies back to the guards and thence to Capustan, but it feels a lot more tightly-written. It also helps that this book really introduces the main series plot-threads as well. Excellent stuff.

BoG, given we're a only month away, how about a spoiler-free review of TBH, just to whet the appetite a bit more?

[Blaine]

Having read GotM and DG and still not enjoying the series or Erikson's writing I gave up on it. Unlike others here, the ideas did not stick around in my head and compel to read more. Ultimately I just found that I didn't care about the story Erikson's telling, I don't care about the characters and I got tired of cringing at the dialogue, deliberate obliqueness and 800 cringe-worthy names that only look cool on the top of a D&D character sheet.

In fact, the only real thing I've learned from Erikson is that no matter what reason you give for not liking it on this board, someone will run to tell you how horribly wrong you are.

It's just a bunch of books. Try 'em, read 'em, see what you think. If you're not put off by the idea that even most Erikson fans admit that GotM is a complete chore to read, then best of luck.

[Xanrn]

Yep its opinion.

You think the Books are bard.

I think their Great.

I also think your a bunch of over picky mooks, but hey thats just my opinions. Also my slightly toned down opinion.

I personnelly see nothing wrong with GotM, mind you I have read it a good 10 times, the first time it was fairly hard. But first steps are always the hardest.

[Galactus]

Christ on an interstellar Spaceship!

We have different opinions on a work of fiction and you start insulting us personally?

That's not very mature of you.

No one has said you can't enjoy the books.... They have just stated the reasons *they* don't. Yet you keep calling those who do not enjoy the things you enjoy "unsophisticated" and "over picky mooks"

(And I don't even consider the books *bad* just not (to paraphrase Lyanna "OMGWTFHBBQSOGOOD!")

[werewolfv2]

. If you're not put off by the idea that even most Erikson fans admit that GotM is a complete chore to read, then best of luck.

I dont think "chore" is what most of us say.