Question about Malazan

[Relic]

I don't like his prose.

Well, imho, his writing gets better as the series progresses. Sadly, he also develops a tendency to over indulge in psuedo philosophy. His ideas aren't all bad, and some are laid out rather nicely, but he just goes on and on. So yeah, prose improves, bad habits expand.

As far as the Michael Bay comparison goes...

Please. Stop.

You do the world an injustice by trivializing the evil that is Michael Bay.

[Humble Asskicker]

How about Brett Ratner?

[jurble]

The one major problem I have with Malazan is the time-line, and from my time posting on the Malazanempire forums, all the fans agree that you just don't think about it. There are so many time line issues, more than just "warrens did it" can explain - since several characters don't got near warrens. For example, based on that chick who was raped by a priest of the Pannion's Seer's kid's age, it took Cutter roughly 4 years to get from Malaz Island back to Darujhistan. In the same time period, Karsa Orlong's rape-children grew to adulthood. And roughly one month passed for the Bonehunters.

[The Evil Hat]

Maybe I'm oblivious, but I've only noticed one timeline thing, and it really didn't bug me that much. Anyone care to point out the worst of them (up to Reaper's Gale, which is as far as I've gotten so far)?

[Shryke]

You haven't hit it yet.

There were a few timeline schenanigans before that, but they mostly seemed resolvable. Then Toll The Hounds hit.

At that point, Erikson threw consistency out the window. Then dragged it back into his home and raped it. Then strangled it to death with a phone cord, chopped it into bits, smoked it to store for later and made it into sandwiches he ate on a sesame seed bagel with mustard for the next few months.

The timeline is dead.

[The Evil Hat]

Huh. Well, I guess I'll have some confusing reading ahead of me, then?

[Shryke]

Huh. Well, I guess I'll have some confusing reading ahead of me, then?

Eh, not really.

Each book is internally consistent. (Well, as internally consistent as any Malazan book is)

It's only when you start trying to tie it to events in the rest of the series that you start realising the timeline just doesn't work.

[werewolfv2]

You haven't hit it yet.

There were a few timeline schenanigans before that, but they mostly seemed resolvable. Then Toll The Hounds hit.

At that point, Erikson threw consistency out the window. Then dragged it back into his home and raped it. Then strangled it to death with a phone cord, chopped it into bits, smoked it to store for later and made it into sandwiches he ate on a sesame seed bagel with mustard for the next few months.

The timeline is dead.

Oh thats good :D LOL!!

That being said, Im one of the ones that just doesnt try to think about it..because life is just to damn short to try to figure out where and when the what may have, or is going to, or is happen..happened, um.. happening... ah... ya...

[polishgenius]

TtH is the worst, but Reaper's Gale does have

the Barghast arriving in Lether years before they left Genebackis, and Fear and the gang apparently taking several years to walk two or three thousand miles.

[Lord of Rhinos]

The uproar is because people are hypocrites who don't admit prejudices.

Martin Vs Erikson always comes up because it has the traits of the typical fantasy Vs mainstream.

That's why certain posters want to reinforce stereotypes all the times. Erikson = comics. Erikson = mangas. Erikson = Michael Bay.

Erikson = fantasy = bad writing, juvenile.

Obviously you can't use fantasy as a stereotype here on this boards. You have to be so much more subtle.

I think you're wrong. Erikson gets picked on for being anime or comic like because that's the world he writes. Anomander Drake--with his huge soul eating sword, flowing white hair, and emo attitude would fit in perfectly in a manga. Erikson likes names that would fit well in comic books (Envy, Spite, Draconus, Quick Ben, Dancer, Surly, and Fear sound like they could be a team of supervillains), the big ideas (undead dinosaurs with anti-grav lasers), the supervillains with huge egos (Kallor and Dr. Doom are brothers from another mother), the over the top monologues and purple prose, the unique powers and origins and appearances (Gesler and Stormy).

Erikson has a lot in common with comics. Whether or not you view that as a good thing or a bad thing is up to you.

Of course, Erikson also has a lot of non-comic book traits.

[Ahimsa]

I've read quite a few of the Erikson books, all but maybe the last one. I like high fantasy just fine (though not so much as maybe 15 years ago) but his writing always struck me as poor. The intended comic relief was just embarrassing. The plot is nothing special, but the characterization is just so...high school.

That said, I read something like eight of his books, just for Karsa Orlong. I have a major weakness for the literary badass, and this uber-Conan was, for me, the only reason worth reading the books for.

[polishgenius]

That said, I read something like eight of his books, just for Karsa Orlong. I have a major weakness for the literary badass, and this uber-Conan was, for me, the only reason worth reading the books for.

Methinks you're exaggerating slightly, since Karsa didn't get more than a cameo until book 4.

[Wastrel]

I'm perplexed... a few years ago, this was being intensely praised all over this board as the next best thing to Martin. And now suddenly I literally can't find a good word spoken about it here? Surely it took more than one book with a confused timeline to change that attitude?

Then again, the rebuttal, that all these things that look like rubbishness are actually hallmarks of 'real' fantasy and everyone who doesn't like Malazan is a fantasy-hating bigot... is also not convincing. "You want high fantasy? You can't HANDLE high fantasy!"

So, I'll be reassuring: I'm OK with high fantasy. A lot of it has flaws, sure, but I often like it anyway. I've always loved Tolkien. I've read about a hundred D&D novels, and plenty of Feist and Eddings, and the Deathgate Cycle, and the Drenai novels, and... so, I'm inoculated to fantasy. I may not think it's all brilliant, but I've been reading it since infancy, and I can safely say that I don't dislike things just because they're fantasy.

So, those fantasy-lovers who like Malazan, please, help out somebody who hasn't read it yet: what DOES it have that's good? I mean, the other lot are panning it for its terrible plotting, characterisation, dialogue, consistency, originality and themes - and so far all I can see in return is "yeah, well, obviously you have to ignore those elements" and "yeah, but like some of the guys in it are like soooo cool, they're like totally BADASS, dude!". But I know that can't be all there is to it, because this series was really popular not long ago, and it can't all be because of pornographically violent adolescent wish-fulfillment fantasies. So what's it got that I should read it for?

[werewolfv2]

I'm perplexed... a few years ago, this was being intensely praised all over this board as the next best thing to Martin. And

So, those fantasy-lovers who like Malazan, please, help out somebody who hasn't read it yet: what DOES it have that's good? I mean, the other lot are panning it for its terrible plotting, characterisation, dialogue, consistency, originality and themes - and so far all I can see in return is "yeah, well, obviously you have to ignore those elements" and "yeah, but like some of the guys in it are like soooo cool, they're like totally BADASS, dude!". But I know that can't be all there is to it, because this series was really popular not long ago, and it can't all be because of pornographically violent adolescent wish-fulfillment fantasies. So what's it got that I should read it for?

Hey, I still enjoy Erikson more than Martin. I think Martin writes better quality and does a lot better than Erikson but...

If you take away the timeline "issue" and just read the books without trying to map out the "when did what happen"... I mean, really, isnt life a bit to short to worry that much?

That leaves the writing style/ect complaints. If you dont already have issues with such things, then keep going! Ive been up to Dust and yeah, some parts are weaker than his earlier books, some parts are stronger. I personally enjoy his writing style, I enjoy his humor (for the most part). So what if some of his characters seem a lot like other of his characters? I mean really, there are not that many unique people in the real world either. He has enough variation to make it interesting, with a cast as large as his there of course will be similar people, but he also has more than enough stand out people.

Why keep reading? Malazan is a hell of a ride, its fun, has a lot of action and is really enjoyable. . . and has a new book published about once a year. :D

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

So, those fantasy-lovers who like Malazan, please, help out somebody who hasn't read it yet: what DOES it have that's good? I mean, the other lot are panning it for its terrible plotting, characterisation, dialogue, consistency, originality and themes - and so far all I can see in return is "yeah, well, obviously you have to ignore those elements" and "yeah, but like some of the guys in it are like soooo cool, they're like totally BADASS, dude!". But I know that can't be all there is to it, because this series was really popular not long ago, and it can't all be because of pornographically violent adolescent wish-fulfillment fantasies. So what's it got that I should read it for?

Well, I don't agree with most of these points (except consistency, this is seriously fucked up). Characterisation is a mixed bag. There is a lot of shallow, repetitive characters but a handful of them is quite deep,and Erikson actually gets better on this as the series goes on. As for plotting, dialogue, originality and themes, I think all of these are actually quite strong points of his writing. What attracts me the most is emotional side, though. Erikson has enormous gift for tragedy, I also enjoy his humor, which admittedly is not to everybody's taste. Malazan books make me both cry and laugh aloud while reading, and there are precious few authors who can do that.

I agree that series more or less jumped the shark after TBH, because of vanishing traces of consistency and constant growth of those dreary internal monologues, but I still enjoy Malazan baceuse of above mentioned reasons, even if I no longer think it is the best thing since sliced bread.

[Gormenghast]

So, those fantasy-lovers who like Malazan, please, help out somebody who hasn't read it yet: what DOES it have that's good? I mean, the other lot are panning it for its terrible plotting, characterisation, dialogue, consistency, originality and themes - and so far all I can see in return is "yeah, well, obviously you have to ignore those elements"

Those who appreciate Erikson would never said "to ignore those elements". I read Erikson, beside other things, BECAUSE of plot, dialogue, consistency, originality and themes.

You are wrong or simply siding with detractors if you think the positives are to be looked elsewhere. It's simply a matter of how you see things, and if you appreciate or not what you see. It's not like there's 2 different books, one good and one bad. It's that what's in there can be seen as bad or good. It's the same thing one reader appreciates and the other doesn't.

You think this is peculiar of Erikson, but it really isn't. One can see the political intrigue in ASOIAF as a great positive, and another may dismiss all of it as soap-opera and convoluted melodramatic family drama.

That said, on the surface, a major, direct "fun" satisfaction I get from Malazan is not unlike the vibes I get from watching "Lost". How mysteries and revelations build up (so curiosity, excitement, expectations) to shape an interesting mythology. I was thinking about this these days because right now "Lost" is starting to reveal things, but it isn't completely satisfying. Every mystery revealed leads to a kind of delusion since what is revealed doesn't seem to match expectations. It's like seeing a magic trick explained plainly. After that you wonder how could you be awed in the first place. "Lost" is still fun to watch because it has rhythm and competent execution. But when the episode ends and you think about what was revealed there's always a delusion or lack of true satisfaction. Instead Malazan is much more generous. The revelations aren't squeezed at the end or teased forever, but follow the whole narrative. You get new elements constantly, almost on every page of the 1000 that make a book. And these elements are all part of the same puzzle that slowly comes to be. Parts you thought were completely unrelated are revealed as the same thing, or parts you thought you knew well are revealed to be something completely different. The appearance of every new piece is important for the whole picture and you can feel a definite progress in understanding the thing. And the more you understand, the more everything moves into its place. The books are interlinked and intricately woven, not just linearly from the first to the last, but jumping back and forth. Big revelations that relate to something that happened thousands pages before or after. (obviously mistakes happen, even if Erikson is already inhuman for what he did achieve)

This is some of the most superficial fun I get from the books. The surprises, revelations, continuous reversals, inversions. How Erikson plays with perceptions only to subvert them. Mindfucks. Tricks of every kind. Sleight of hand. All together with experimentation on every level. The books have themes that return, but I never feel like the writer has ran dry and is telling again the same story just to fill the page. If anything he struggles to put everything in. The Malazan series is incredibly dense, rich and layered to insane levels. For me it's a fun to dig.

Then there's a deeper personal level that is about the "voice" of the writer and the way it appeals to me and that I perceive as truthful. Which means I developed a trust in the writer that goes beyond screwing up a date or the route of a ship.

[Sebastian]

I'm perplexed... a few years ago, this was being intensely praised all over this board as the next best thing to Martin. And now suddenly I literally can't find a good word spoken about it here? Surely it took more than one book with a confused timeline to change that attitude?

I think there is a reason why so many people have started to dislike or even hate Erikson's books even though they liked them at first. However, I stopped reading the series more than seven years ago so I'm not sure how well I remember everything.

At the beginning of the first book, the reader has absolutely no clue what is going on. Some god possesses a little girl for some reason, then a big battle happens where everyone betrays everyone else and lots of people die. After that, one of the main characters is murdered and immediately resurrected by another god, again for unknown reasons. And it goes on like that, getting more and more complex and confusing all the time.

About half the characters are secretly gods, millennia-old mages or people who used to run armies and empires. Everyone has a hidden back-story. At first, it's a lot of fun to figure out who is who and how they know each other and what the fuck is going on. The series is like a huge puzzle or mystery plot. And yes, it also helps that many of his characters are really cool and badass.

Unfortunately, the more books you read the more it becomes clear that the author himself has no idea what is going on and just makes everything up as he goes along. What seemed like careful planning and plotting in the first book turns out to be just random stuff thrown together. I have read somewhere that Erikson doesn't even do second drafts of his books. It's really no wonder the timeline is so fucked up.

That's why many people's opinion of Malazan changes so drastically over time: they realise it doesn't make any sense and feel sort of betrayed by the author. At least, that's how it went for me.

EDIT: I just read Gormenghast's post after writing this. I think it's funny that two people can read the same books and have completely the opposite reaction. :D

[End of Disc One]

That said, on the surface, a major, direct "fun" satisfaction I get from Malazan is not unlike the vibes I get from watching "Lost".

Exactly. I'm a huge LOST fan and I love both LOST and Malazan in their approach to worldbuilding and mysteries. They both constantly keep you thinking and questions are usually answered with more questions. Some people see this as a flaw, but I love it.

[Ahimsa]

Methinks you're exaggerating slightly, since Karsa didn't get more than a cameo until book 4.

Damn, that's a good point. I guess it helped that a friend lent me all the books and swore they kept getting better. To me, they didn't get appreciably better or worse, just stayed kind of meh.

[polishgenius]

A few thoughts from my perspective as a Malazan lover on why Wastrel should try the books:

Character - he's widely criticised for this, but I think it's overdone. A lot of the soldier types do blend together, but other than that, he's aiming for iconic, archetypal characters rather than realistic day-to-day rounded people, and when he hits that spot he really nails it. He's not looking to portray realism, he's myth-making, and his characters are the pantheon. This does lend itself to the easy criticism that it's all about BADASS DUDES WIV BIG SOORDS but there's more to it than that, he manages to layer it with humour and emotion.

Plotting- don't mistake criticism of flaws for universal caning. Yes, his books, particularly the later ones, often sprawl with seemingly extraenous pieces slowing the flow, he can be fuzzy round the edges, and his consistency is sometimes atrocious, but the slow unveiling of what's happening and why is at times masterful - and whereas sometimes his inconsistencies and retcons stick in the teeth horribly, on other occasions revelations make huge sense recursively and change the entire slant of a previous book on a reread. And in terms of pacing, MoI is a masterpiece despite the bloody Mhybe.

Also, similarly to my points on character, he's basically writing a grand myth-epic, not a chronicle of life, and the lack of day-to-day believability compared to the big background reflects that.

Originality, again. Some bits are blatantly mixed and matched from elsewhere - the Tiste, for example- but he also comes up with some great stuff, like the T'lan Imass, one of the more original races I've come across in fantasy.

Generally, Bastard of Godsgrace summed up why I like the series so much - he strikes an emotional resonance, aided by his writing style. His prose isn't for everyone, apparently - it's a showy sort of thing- but if you like it then you'll be whooping and weeping along with the rest of us converted and marvelling at the scope and sweep of the thing.

Even towards the end. There's no denying post book 5 he went downhill some, although I do think Dust of Dreams fixed a lot of the issues the previous three had.