MethodMan Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I got a couple questions about the series (spoilers ahoy!): First of all in GotM, Ganoes and Tattersail end up sleeping together; Where was the connection between them? Other then two or three lines right before it happened, Erikson seemed to rush through the entire sequenece. Then in DHG when the hell did Minala fall in love with Kalam? It was like one instance Kalam believes she hates him, then he leaves, and she follows him because she fell in love? I realize that maybe I skimmed through some parts (some of the character-to-character talk is really, really fucking boring), but I didn't skim through that much Anyways, It's a great book, I just find that he seems to dull some of the characters down when they speak, while when you read their first person perspectives they seem to use these huge words when they are thinking to themselves. Also, did anyone else notice that he sometimes uses words to make it seem like he really knows what he's talking about when he's describing certain things, but it would've been way easier for him, as well as the reader, if he had just used something simple in it's place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of Godsgrace Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Werthead, No, they don't. And no, no maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Interesting and slightly surprising. Tempted to ask other spoilerish questions, but with the book out in about 4 weeks (possibly 2-3 given British booksellers' relaxed attitude to release dates) it seems a bit pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 RE: Tattersail & Ganoes. For some reason I expected captain Paran to sleep with the Adjunct for some time, I have no idea why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 You mean Paran and Lorn? If it was Paran and Tavore, that would be disturbing in a Jaime-&-Cersei way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I haven't even *met* Tavore yet. (SFbok doesen't have the third book (Memories of Ice?) in at the moment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Baelish Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Galactus, I thought you were reading DH at the moment? If so, you have met Tavore in the prologue and she is mentioned various times in Felisin's POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Blackjack: I've heard her mentioned, but I've not "met" her yet. EDIT: Scratch that, she was at the end of DHG for a brief moment. And apparently, she's more interested in women anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 And she's in Gardens of the Moon. Paran returns to Unta briefly after his investigation in Itko Kan and meets both Tavore and Felisin. Tavore is seen during the Cull scene at the start of Deadhouse Gates as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat5150 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Hi guys! Just read GotM and thought that it could well be the best damn debut I have ever read. Can't wait to see how the rest of the series will unfold! If anyone is interested, you can click on the link below to read my book review. DEADHOUSE GATES, here I come! Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brys Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 pat - GotM is IMO clearly the weakest novel in the series. If you enjoyed GotM that much, I'll be very interested to see what you think about Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice. Also remember that there was an 8 year gap in between writing GotM and DG. I'm not sure I'd say it was the best debut I've read (Bakker's the Darkness that Comes Before comes to mind in epic fantasy), but it was a decent one, if not the most polished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodymN Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I'm not sure I'd say it was the best debut I've read Even though I'm a big fan of Erikson and what he brings to the table, I have to agree with you. This is not an elite debut, but one that promises interesting possibilities in my eyes, and delivered upon some of them in subsequent books. It just isn't a book that I'm ready to put in coversation with what I would identify as elite debuts - even of recent years - like Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Duncan's Vellum, Link's Stranger Things Happen, Cisco's Divinity Student, Mamatas's Move Underground, Danielewski's House of Leaves, Philip's In the Palace of Repose, Yellin's Genizah at the House of Shepher etc, or where I would put Scott Lynch's The Lies of Locke Lamora. I enjoyed it very much, just not in that class at this point IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakasi Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Hi guys! Just read GotM and thought that it could well be the best damn debut I have ever read. Can't wait to see how the rest of the series will unfold! If anyone is interested, you can click on the link below to read my book review. DEADHOUSE GATES, here I come! Patrick Pat don't feel bad about liking GOTM that much. For my wife who has read all 5 it is still her favorite. For me it is still one of my favs too. So yeah while everyone might not love it, some do. Don't feel bad about being one of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaco Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Yeah, it's pretty hard for me to pick a favorite among the first 3 books, though I'd certainly agree that GOTM is the least polished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilroy Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 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. There is a marked improvement in the quality of Erikson's writing, by 'House of Chains'. There is a great deal of well-written humour in the dialogue between Bugg and Tehol Beddict in 'Midnight Tides'. Erikson has developed his own style of writing that is distinctly different from that of his earlier novels. I am eagerly anticipating 'Reaper's Gale' coming out later this year; not only for the plot, but also for the vivid imagery that has become a staple of his novels. 'Gardens of the Moon' is a novel that I have been meaning to set time aside to read once again, as I am sure it will provide insight, upon reflection, into the world of the Malazan Book of the Fallen that I was unaware of during my first read. My advice is to definitely persevere with the novel, as well as the series as a whole. Before you realise it, you will hopefully be as engrossed in Erikson's works as I and many other readers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilroy Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Just read GotM and thought that it could well be the best damn debut I have ever read. I am curious to know if your opinion has changed at all, particularly since the release of 'The Lies of Locke Lamora' and other great debuts like 'The Blade Itself'. I am halfway through reading Lynch's novel that, with its use of intermittent flashback, reminds me of Erikson's gutsy decision in 'Gardens of the Moon' to drop readers into the middle of a battle at the start of the story. It still strikes me to this day how interesting and, to my knowledge, unique it was for Erikson to avoid any kind of introduction to the characters of his world and it itself. As the story progresses in his debut, all this becomes apparent with time. Forcing readers to get to grips with the subject matter of what they are reading is a much more captivating way to motivate them to keep turning the pages than the use of cliffhangers or other common literary techniques. Although my opinion on the matter may differ, from what others on this board are writing, upon completion of 'The Lies of Locke Lamora,' I would at present rank Erikson's debut as the best I have read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat5150 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Man, This goes back more than a year, when I finally gave Erikson a shot! Nope, as much as I like Scott and The Lies of Locke Lamora, I rank Gardens of the Moon ahead of Lynch's debut. In retrospect, the best fantasy debut of all time could well be GRRM's A Game of Thrones... Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ardens of the Moon was honestly a very poor book I thoguht. Erikson was absolutely horrendous with the character he tried to create and had no idea how to map out or pace the story. We had Whiskeyjack and Paran, two of the most shallow, cliche characters in the history of fantasy, random happenings that throw you in the middle without any chance to know what's going on, or to care. (I care about Tattersail losing her boyfriend or Nightchill dying why?) Erikson's really been missing for some time in the series. books 2 and 3? Great. Book 5? Good. Books 4, 1 and 6? Subpar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Nope, as much as I like Scott and The Lies of Locke Lamora, I rank Gardens of the Moon ahead of Lynch's debut. In retrospect, the best fantasy debut of all time could well be GRRM's A Game of Thrones... Well it could have been, if AGoT had been his debut. Dying of the Light was his debut novel, published in 1978 and his debut short story was published in 1972. His first fantasy novel (or fantasy-horror novel) was 1982's magnificent Fevre Dream, which I recommend without hesitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barry Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I think that Erikson's books are the greatest examples of readers making the most out of the material. I have no idea if SE meant to leave so much unsaid/explained/described (I have my doubts) but his style allows the reader to fill in the blanks themselves. For my tastes this is lazy and poor writing (he makes up for this in his scope and imagination.) You can tell me that his characters are strong but to my mind they are all driven by the plot rather than their own motivations. You can tell me that his lack of introduction is a brave step into uncharted fantasy but looking at his lack of writing skills at the time I reckon he just skipped the hardest part any fantasy author faces, the introduction into a new world. His books compare to Martin's as an sketch does to an oil painting. Martin produces a complete work which is rich and full with details hidden right out in the open. SE produces the best sketch ever, which allows you to fill in the colours yourself and imagine the fine detail. This still tells me that Martin is a great writer writing great fantasy while Erikson is a great story teller struggling to get his story across despite of rather than because of his writing skills. I enjoy SE's books but I put his style down to limitations rather than bravery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.