Question about Malazan

[Blaine]

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.

I'm a huge LOST fan as well. But I never got that same satisfaction from Malazan. For me, reading Malazan didn't deliver the kind of characterization that LOST does - which is flawed enough to begin with. Ultimately, for me, if you don't care in the least for the characters, then any mystery-building is basically pointless. So, YMMV.

[Gormenghast]

I'm a huge LOST fan as well. But I never got that same satisfaction from Malazan. For me, reading Malazan didn't deliver the kind of characterization that LOST does - which is flawed enough to begin with. Ultimately, for me, if you don't care in the least for the characters, then any mystery-building is basically pointless. So, YMMV.

It's not inconsistent with what we said.

The characters in Lost are the part I consider more cheesy and I developed some intolerance toward some of the main ones. When Lost goes into emotional territory is almost unbearable for me because it is so trite, predictable and already seen.

Mystery-building is indeed pointless when it isn't linked to something deeper or truthful. It doesn't have to be necessarily a character.

To crown everything I'd say the the best piece of "fiction" in every form for me has been Infinite Jest (Foster Wallace). Malazan or Lost are intricate and layered, but don't even remotely come close to Infinite Jest (that, ironically, has the most obsessive attention to detail possible and yet has some minimal inconsistencies on the timeline). And the thing in Infinite Jest is that the mystery-building is ALWAYS connected with something so deep and true that makes it frightening. Nothing in IJ is gratuitous and it's the most generous book I've ever read.

[MadMardigan]

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?

[Shryke]

That doesn't make any sense. Most people love Abercrombie, there's lots who love Bakker (who's not exactly unprolific either). Mieville is not slouch and he's well loved.

[Kalbear]

People are big fans of GGK, Richard Morgan and to a lesser extent Robin Hobb - and all of them are fairly prolific.

Heck, tons of folks here are Pratchett fans, and he wrote a book in the time it took me to finish up this sentence.

[MadMardigan]

As well people should like those authors. I like most of those authors as well (some I have not read yet). But there is kind of tendency to let the positives fade away, while the negatives stick around the board. We've got 48 threads of Goodkind hate (and from what I've seen, they're all highly entertaining). This is about the third or fourth Malazan thread I've seen. It's the debate, the back and forth that seems to keep these things going, but why are certain Authors so contentious while others are not? And to the question I quoted in my reply, why did the board "turn" on Malazan? I offered my theory and like I said, I was mostly tongue in cheek there. It doesn't make sense to be jealous of prolific writers, they give us something to read while we wait :D

As for Abercrombie, I read through the last thread on Abercrombie. There seemed to be an awful lot of "I loved First Law, but not Best Served Cold" going on in those comments. Personally, I loved BSC, thought it as good as First Law and stylistically maybe a better, "neater" story. So where will the board come down when 'The Heroes' comes out? It will be interesting to watch.

[Slick Mongoose]

A few years ago on here there was more praise for Erikson than not.

What's changed? I submit that the books have got worse. I used to love Erikson and would defend him, and after books 6 & 7 grew less and less enthusiastic. Book 8 was the final straw, a dire turd of a book, the worst book i've read since Crossroads of Twilight.

I haven't bothered with 9.

[kungtotte]

Dust of Dreams is better than Toll the Hounds. Though that isn't saying much, I know :)

[Blaine]

It's not inconsistent with what we said.

The characters in Lost are the part I consider more cheesy and I developed some intolerance toward some of the main ones. When Lost goes into emotional territory is almost unbearable for me because it is so trite, predictable and already seen.

Mystery-building is indeed pointless when it isn't linked to something deeper or truthful. It doesn't have to be necessarily a character.

I wasn't pointing out inconsistency, just a difference in tastes.

Maybe not for you, but characterization is that important for me. At in the case of Lost, any annoying Out of Character moment or cheesy bit I can blame to some degree on varying writers, bad directors, botched acting, etc. With Malazon, not so much.

To crown everything I'd say the the best piece of "fiction" in every form for me has been Infinite Jest (Foster Wallace). Malazan or Lost are intricate and layered, but don't even remotely come close to Infinite Jest (that, ironically, has the most obsessive attention to detail possible and yet has some minimal inconsistencies on the timeline). And the thing in Infinite Jest is that the mystery-building is ALWAYS connected with something so deep and true and that is frightening. Nothing in IJ is gratuitous and it's the most generous book I've ever read.

Heh. I'm a big Foster Wallace fan myself - which goes to my original point. No matter what you get out of something, it's not the same thing someone else gets out of it. As such, it would be false to assume that because you and both enjoy Lost or IJ, that doesn't necessarily mean we'd both like Malazan.

Not that you were implying that - it's just worth noting, especially for someone trying to understand whether or not they'd enjoy the books.

[Shryke]

A few years ago on here there was more praise for Erikson than not.

What's changed? I submit that the books have got worse. I used to love Erikson and would defend him, and after books 6 & 7 grew less and less enthusiastic. Book 8 was the final straw, a dire turd of a book, the worst book i've read since Crossroads of Twilight.

I haven't bothered with 9.

Aye. This is what I was saying before.

Erikson had alot of fans here back when like MOI had just come out and such. Some never liked him, but he's listed on virtually every recommendation list this board produces for a reason.

The thing is, over time people have soured on him as the books have declined in quality. The things people didn't like from the first books that were overlooked because the rest of the stuff in there was so good have expanded. People tend to give new authors a bit of a break. Authors tend to improve with time. But when they don't improve, the criticism begins to get louder.

Beyond that, Erikson can be very weak in some areas that many here consider important (like characterization) that other Fantasy/Sci-Fi groups may not place as high a value on. This board, in general, does demand higher standards then most SFF communities I've seen. Simply having a cool plot with cool magic and shit isn't enough.

[Kalbear]

Another problem with Erikson (that is somewhat shared with Lost, and with BSG, and with other similar stories) is that a lot of his value is in reading about 'what happens next'. He sets up these mysteries, and at first that's very titillating and interesting to think about.

But then it keeps not providing answers and resolution to plots and said mysteries, so instead of piquing interest people get more and more angry. When things seem to plod on and be filler, this is downright annoying.

What's worse, however, is that in the people that still do like it it sets up huge expectations for a payoff - and that payoff can only disappoint. That the payoffs have kind of sucked is even worse. Now you have a lot of people who were invested in your series who hate that they invested themselves in the first place, and instead of vehement protractors (which should be a name of a band), you have very antagonistic fans.

That's still not why I didn't like the series, but I have seen that in several posters, especially with the 6,7, and 8th books. The resolution of these existing plots were simply too unpalatable, too long in coming and ultimately too disappointing for the buildup.

[Nerdanel]

I happen to have liked Toll the Hounds a lot. It was a huge step up after the disappointing Reaper's Gale.

From what I'm gathering, Toll the Hounds didn't contain enough cool action scenes and large-scale warfare for some people, instead having more focus on characterization and gradually building suspense and stuff. There was also the massive authorial misdirection about what the main plot was.

[Shryke]

Another problem with Erikson (that is somewhat shared with Lost, and with BSG, and with other similar stories) is that a lot of his value is in reading about 'what happens next'. He sets up these mysteries, and at first that's very titillating and interesting to think about.

But then it keeps not providing answers and resolution to plots and said mysteries, so instead of piquing interest people get more and more angry. When things seem to plod on and be filler, this is downright annoying.

I found this was a big part of my disillusionment with the series. Not that the resolutions weren't big, but that there weren't any.

He lays out mysteries and all sorts of weird events and hints that it's all part of something larger, but none of it ever comes together and makes any sense. This is especially true from book 4 onwards imo.

I found book 1-3 very good for having moments where suddenly it all clicks into place and you understand how events are relating and such. But for the last like 5 books, nothing really makes sense from a larger narrative perspective. Random shit just seems to happen and any explanations we get are half done and so unclear as to be even more annoying then no explanation at all.

Rather then making me think he knows what he's about, the further books in the series have made me think he's just pulling shit out of his ass as he goes along.

[Shryke]

I happen to have liked Toll the Hounds a lot. It was a huge step up after the disappointing Reaper's Gale.

From what I'm gathering, Toll the Hounds didn't contain enough cool action scenes and large-scale warfare for some people, instead having more focus on characterization and gradually building suspense and stuff. There was also the massive authorial misdirection about what the main plot was.

Yes of course, it must be that. I personally can't go more then 10 pages without an action scene or I get bored.

It can't possibly have been that TtHs was 90% random shit with page upon page of pseudo-deep fauxlisophical claptrap and no real plot.

And then a big climactic ending that made no sense.

[Ran]

Funnily enough, some comments elsewhere led me to flip through Dust of Dreams, and try to read a long passage. I haven't touched an Erikson book in a couple of years now, I guess, but I remember the first three books very fondly, and consider Memories of Ice to contain some of the most cathartic, emotive moments I've ever read in a fantasy. I'm still sort of interested in how it wraps up, and the fates of certain characters, but not so much that I'm raring to go read the rest in the series and Esslemont's books.

So... Dust of Dreams. Was his prose always this impenetrably turgid? It was painful trying to dig my way through this morass of prose (it was a section having to do with ... I guess I'll spoiler this

Tool becoming a T'lan Imass again, and the Barghast

). Erikson always approached things obliquely, the thematic thrust of his writing was often elusive and hinted at more than explicit, and I (largely) liked it fine when I was following the series. But this ... this was an unreadable mess for me.

Maybe I've just lost the rhythm for it, and picking a semi-random section to read wasn't the best approach.

I've always said that I didn't blame Erikson for my stopping with the fifth novel. It always seemed to me that what happened was he was aiming the series in directions I wasn't interested in going (I do consider the introduction of Karsa Fucking Orlong to be a genuine misstep, however), but I could see why he thought them worthwhile, and why others did. But the prose was never really a problem for me, until now. Maybe there's something to be said for the work collapsing under its own weight, and the author being brought down with it...

I may, some day, re-read those first three books. I don't think I'll ever read past that, though.

[Shryke]

Was his prose always this impenetrably turgid?

I don't think so. Maybe I'm deluding myself.

But it's certainly become that way over the course of the series.

[Nerdanel]

Yes of course, it must be that. I personally can't go more then 10 pages without an action scene or I get bored.

It can't possibly have been that TtHs was 90% random shit with page upon page of pseudo-deep fauxlisophical claptrap and no real plot.

And then a big climactic ending that made no sense.

There was plenty of plot. There were many different plots going on in parallel.

The thing with the big climactic ending is that it followed from some plots threads that had previously seemed very minor. Unpredictability!

[Shryke]

There was plenty of plot. There were many different plots going on in parallel.

The thing with the big climactic ending is that it followed from some plots threads that had previously seemed very minor. Unpredictability!

If by "minor" you mean "not there".

It was like Erikson got tired of actually coming up with reasons for convergences to happen and instead just pulled one of his ass because he needed one.

And there was alot of overly long plots that went nowhere, yes.

And all of this amid a sea of turgid "philosophising" of the most banal sort.

[Nebiros]

I think the Malazan series is very much a mixed bag... and I can both verify and be surprised about some of the rather strong criticism here. I'd like to hear the boarder's opinion on some of the points I'm going to make.

My Malazan history, in short: I've read the first four books, bought the fifth, but never read it. This was an absolute first for me, I've read every single book I've bought (okay, apart from pretty much everything in the "Legends" anthology that wasn't the Hedge Knight - but at least I tried some of the authors for a few pages).

Let me elaborate.

I think the first book was much like eating an elaborate cup of ice cream must feel for someone who has lived on rice and beans for his whole life. It's very strange, you don't really know the flavors you're experiencing, you get the vague feeling that it might make you sick, but man it's sweet and somehow you crave for more.

I'm definitely not the High Fantasy / High Magic type (that's why I love GRRM so much, and I guess many of the fellow boarders here feel the same), but the first book seemed crazy enough to make it interesting. I was also under the impression that Erikson's world must be very deep, and he just wanted the reader to be tossed right into the middle of it for dramatic effect. I finished the first book, and my appetite was whetted.

Then came book 2 (Deadhouse Gates) and I loved it. After 1/3 or so, I thought I'd found the next best thing to Martin. This book elicited an emotional response from me, something I didn't expect (especially not after book 1, which was wild and crazy but not very deep character-wise or emotionally engaging).

I especially liked the character of Felisin, and found her story (especially the early parts) to be very depressing. Again, that was totally unexpected. Then came the part about the Chain of Dogs and Coltaine, and I found myself gripped with fondness for the characters in that arch of the story, hoping them to survive against all odds and cheering for them when they overcame obstacle after obstacle. And then of course the end, seeing it all fall apart - that was some pretty heavy stuff.

And this is the thing that frustrates me so much with Erikson. I think he has the potential to write great, immersive stuff. And then one sees it all go down when he introduces another guy with super-powers and another millenia-old race. Gah. Book 3 was boring, in book 4 I only liked the Karsa part and didn't care for the rest. That's when I stopped reading the series, because I think the few moments of glory don't justify digging through all the boring and ridiciulous stuff.

So much for my analysis of Malazan... however, I'd like if some of the contributors to this thread, especially those who complained about lack of characterization could comment on my perception about Deadhouse Gates. Right now I feel rather strange for having liked it so much when most people seem to go along the lines of "Erikson's characters are shit and his stories aren't very engaging". I'm curious about your thoughts.

[Nerdanel]

If by "minor" you mean "not there".

It was like Erikson got tired of actually coming up with reasons for convergences to happen and instead just pulled one of his ass because he needed one.

The two main plot threads that caused the big climactic ending:

- The fingerless serial killer and his wife.

- The deteriorating situation inside Dragnipur.

Which was also foreshadowed in two others that I can think of right now (probably more):

- Dassem Ultor and the mystery of why a god had interfered to delay him.

- Black Coral and the mystery of what Anomander Rake was going to do and when.

Oh, and the Prologue.

And there was alot of overly long plots that went nowhere, yes.

There were plenty of conclusions. If you wanted everything tied up in a little package with a bow on top, that didn't happen though.

And all of this amid a sea of turgid "philosophising" of the most banal sort.

I'm not going to argue about this as, the whole charge is so vague.