The Malazan Book of the Fallen is done!

[Stego]

he always seems to be very sturdy in his self confidence, indicating perhaps that it is more the reader at fault than any flaw of his.

That's a pretty absurd point of view for a guy who writes Dungeons and Dragons fanfic where everyone is a demigod.

[fionwe1987]

That's a pretty absurd point of view for a guy who writes Dungeons and Dragons fanfic where everyone is a demigod.

I agree. Wasn't there an absurd new introduction printed with a new edition of Gardens of the Moon?

I don't think an author has to respond to every criticism hurled his way, but dismissing them all and continuing to insist that your work is the best thing since sliced bread isn't endearing. Especially when some criticisms like the lack of editing are factually supported, and have indeed reduced the quality of the books a lot.

[Roland_85]

Ok, so, I am not ok with blaming the reader for not "getting" the book (although you have to agree it IS the case a lot of the time), but calling one of the very few greatest examples of Epic Fantasy "a Dungeons & Dragons fanfic" is going too far.

[Stego]

Ok, so, I am not ok with blaming the reader for not "getting" the book (although you have to agree it IS the case a lot of the time), but calling one of the very few greatest examples of Epic Fantasy "a Dungeons & Dragons fanfic" is going too far.

No offense, mate, but you have not read much epic fantasy if you consider this among the best.

[Jussi]

Yeah, Gardens of the Moon was nominated for World Fantasy Award. I don't think they would do that to "a Dungeons & Dragons fanfic".

Malazan Book of the Fallen is one my favourite fantasy series.

[Roland_85]

No offense, mate, but you have not read much epic fantasy if you consider this among the best.

None taken, mate, but you don't really know me well enough to say that. I've been reading speculative fiction for about twenty years now, and I've read most of the big names in both Fantasy AND SF. I apologize if my tastes don't overlap with yours, but when all's said and done, it's just the way things usually are. To call Salvatore's work "a D&D fanfic" is one thing. To call Erikson's the same - quite another.

[Stego]

Yeah, Gardens of the Moon was nominated for World Fantasy Award. I don't think they would do that to "a Dungeons & Dragons fanfic".

That book is an embarrassment to fantasy.

I like Erikson. I think he's a delightful man, and did not ever come off as a pompous ass in person. That said, Gardens of The Moon is narrative drivel.

The World Fantasy Award is nominated by like.... 100 people. In an off year, 10 votes can get you on a ballot. It means nothing. Often times friends get those people on the ballots and not merit. Not to mention, the book that won that year was absolute garbage as well.

[Stego]

To call Salvatore's work "a D&D fanfic" is one thing. To call Erikson's the same - quite another.

No, not really. Same principle. I think Erikson is better than Salvatore and Brooks (if only in ideas -- they both are better storytellers), but not quite up to Weis and Hickman's level. (They understand narrative and how to use it to tell a story -- something Erikson completely lacks any ability in.)

[Roland_85]

I like how you're so absoolute and extreme in your labels. No, seriously, I kinda like it. It's rare for an English-speaking board.

That said, with all its problems Gardens of the Moon is still far superior to 99% of the Fantasy debuts out there. And then you have books 2 through 5 which are on a completely different level.

Also, if you want, I'd be interested in reading your view as to why liking Malazan would mean not having read a lot of fantasy. I notice you didn't answer my last post.

[whatagaff]

I've always thought GotM was Erikson's tightest novel. He focuses on a large cast, albeit the smallest in the series, and the reader has no idea what is going on until the middle of the book. He also manages to tie several threads up nicely at the end of the novel. The conclusion at the fête is one of my favorite scenes of his. I think what tends to happen is revisionist history when looking back at the first novel after reading through the series.

Most of what happens in the book is inconsequential to the series as a whole. Off the top of my head, the only things that have any lasting significance are;

Toc's death, Tattersail, and the introduction of Sorry.

Everything else could have been told through flashbacks or campfire banter among the Bridgeburners. If any of his books were to be labeled an embarassment of fantasy it would have to be House of Chains, still trying to figure out why that novel was published.

[Gormenghast]

No offense, mate, but you have not read much epic fantasy if you consider this among the best.

Your arguments, as always in this case, look always very solid.

"Erikson is better than A, B and C. But he's worse than X, Y and Z."

It says a lot your style of writing definitive judgments without ever giving one motivation for what you say. As if you truly had the illusion your own opinion is actually worth a shit.

Grow up.

(also, envious Martin fans could have at least once avoided to fling shit and venom since this was never meant to be a discussion thread, but just a celebration for a writer who completed his work, no matter what you think of said work)

[Zach H]

I like that the Malazan world allows for many characters to be "demigods." Fantasy is a wide field, after all, and I certainly think there's room for both Erikson's style and the more grounded historical fiction-like approach preferred by other writers. To me one of Erikson's main themes revolves around the notion that all life, from gods to grunts to poor children, is basically the same. I like that the demigods/death-cheaters in Erikson's world can still be miserable or power hungry or lonely or sarcastic. I'll grant that he doesn't build a traditional narrative filled across the board with depth characterization and a steady rhythm for each and every subplot, but again, I don't want all the fiction I read to have to belong to one specific style or discipline. For ideas, an evocative atmosphere, and a clever ability to craft an epic backdrop as filtered through the emotional immediacy of the moment, I believe Erikson stands alongside some very special company as far as crafting epic fantasy that matters (best epics of the decade for me are A Storm of Swords, The Wizard Knight, Blade of Tyshalle, and Toll the Hounds).

[Werthead]

Your arguments, as always in this case, look always very solid.

So what book in the Malazan series are you up to now, btw?

(also, envious Martin fans could have at least once avoided to fling shit and venom since this was never meant to be a discussion thread, but just a celebration for a writer who completed his work, no matter what you think of said work)

Where were 'Martin fans' being envious? And why would they be? Because Malazan has been rushed to a conclusion, to the overall series quality's detriment? Malazan is an example of serious flaws in the 'release a book a year no matter its quality' approach being advocated by some people.

As I said elsewhere, I consider Erikson a genius because Malazan hangs together relatively well despite the conditions it had been written under. Almost any other writer, probably including GRRM, writing under those conditions would have produced nothing coherent at all. If the Malazan series had been written under a stronger drafting discipline, I suspect most of the criticisms of the series as it stands now would not exist.

[fionwe1987]

As I said elsewhere, I consider Erikson a genius because Malazan hangs together relatively well despite the conditions it had been written under. Almost any other writer, probably including GRRM, writing under those conditions would have produced nothing coherent at all. If the Malazan series had been written under a stronger drafting discipline, I suspect most of the criticisms of the series as it stands now would not exist.

What conditions would those be? One book a year, with no time to edit? Jordan initially delivered one book a year too, and the first six books of the Wheel of Time hang together extremely well.

And I don't think its a great achievement to write a barely cohesive set of novels and justify it by saying you wrote at breakneck speed. Might as well praise Paolini for writing swill just because he was a kid.

Martin may piss people off with his writing speed, but I can be pretty certain his series will stand the test of time because Martin is a great story-teller. Erikson had great ideas, which even came across as good to great stories for some time. Since then it has all been swill.

[Werthead]

What conditions would those be? One book a year, with no time to edit? Jordan initially delivered one book a year too, and the first six books of the Wheel of Time hang together extremely well.

True, and three of those books were longer than any of Erikson's. At the same time because Book 1 was not published until after he'd delivered Book 2 and was partway through writing Book 3, Jordan didn't write those books quite as fast as their release schedule indicates (though still in 14-16 months each, which is still impressive). Erikson's schedule is very tight, as he has to write each book in about eight months (since he presumably wants to spend the other four months on other projects, presumably including the novellas, or spending time with the family), which given their size and complexity is considerably more challenging than what Jordan did. Also, Jordan did slow down notably after the first seven, whilst Erikson has kept it up for nine books in a row.

[fionwe1987]

True, and three of those books were longer than any of Erikson's. At the same time because Book 1 was not published until after he'd delivered Book 2 and was partway through writing Book 3, Jordan didn't write those books quite as fast as their release schedule indicates (though still in 14-16 months each, which is still impressive). Erikson's schedule is very tight, as he has to write each book in about eight months (since he presumably wants to spend the other four months on other projects, presumably including the novellas, or spending time with the family), which given their size and complexity is considerably more challenging than what Jordan did. Also, Jordan did slow down notably after the first seven, whilst Erikson has kept it up for nine books in a row.

None of this makes much difference. No one is forcing Erikson to keep his pace, and given the alarming fall in quality of the books, he should have had the sense to slow down and consider actually having his work edited before having them published.

Brandon Sanderson took a highly anticipated series conclusion, wrote in a different world with characters he's never worked with before and is delivering two books in two years, while starting off his own ambitious series as well. And even he's taking a break before the next book.

To be sure, Sanderson isn't as good (yet) as Erikson was in his early books, but The Gathering Storm was a much stronger book than a load of Erikson's latter works, and it was by a new author writing in another's universe!

[Eurytus]

Since his ludicrous introduction to the reissued Gardens of the Moon I've come to see Erikson as more and more of another Goodkind with a different philosphy. Swap objectivism with identikit worldweary soldier #109 and instead of one nigh invincible Gary Stu have a host of them.

As I've said before, Malazan often comes across as a novel version of one of the more extreme Anime series, where everyone is a quasi god with uber powers and countless "limit breaks" swamp the narrative. It reminds me of my early days of role playing, playing with a DM who had no idea of restraint and decided to keep on upping the number of awesomely powerful NPCs (controlled by him of course) for his own amusement.

Had Erikson actually employed an editor, removed uninteresting plotlines and maybe not killed off/allowed Esslemont to tell the story of every interesting character in preference of focusing on the unbelieveably irritating characters that Erikson obviously loves (Kruppe and Tehol for instance) then perhaps it might have worked. As it is I think Malazan has the biggest gap between potential and actual result of any series I have ever read.

[Zach H]

Martin may piss people off with his writing speed, but I can be pretty certain his series will stand the test of time because Martin is a great story-teller.

To be fair, though, the types of work that stand out more for ideas or atmosphere or prose rather than traditional "storytelling" attributes can stand the test of time as well. Moorcock's Cornelius work, for example, is about as far away as you can get from a "storyteller's narrative" and yet those books are still in print and critically examined/appreciated after 30-40 years.

I suppose it might come down to how you define standing the test of time, though. Wolfe's probably the only genre-marketed writer still going who I see one day being viewed with the same legendary status that a Tolkien or a Peake gets today, although of course that's not to say that recent history hasn't produced some great books that will still be read for years to come.

And at the risk of posting something entirely off-topic, I can't wait to see how Erikson wraps things up. Unlike many, I like the latter period books just as much as what came before (and more so in the case of TTH).

[ljkeane]

Toll the Hounds? Really? I think Toll the Hounds is close to being the worst book I've read in the past decade and it's certainly the one that pushed me into completely giving up on the series.

[fionwe1987]

To be fair, though, the types of work that stand out more for ideas or atmosphere or prose rather than traditional "storytelling" attributes can stand the test of time as well. Moorcock's Cornelius work, for example, is about as far away as you can get from a "storyteller's narrative" and yet those books are still in print and critically examined/appreciated after 30-40 years.

But Erikson's prose is extremely erratic. And it has been sliding in the last few books, IMO. And atmosphere? Any sense of it is completely destroyed by Erikson's horrible mangling of the thematic elemets of the story. Ideas, sure... but those ideas need to be presented in a way that makes people want to read. Erikson failed there, in the later books.