Malazan

[Gormenghast]

Right, so Bakker also sounds like a douche. How is that relevant, already? Is that some sort of attempt at explaining that all authors are arrogant haughty bastards and therefore it's OK for Erikson to be like this, or something?

Meh, whatever

No, it's a continuous example of misunderstanding. Because even in Bakker case he is NOT arrogant and is saying something simply true.

Those comments are the result of one questioning himself more deeply than most. Yet those same comments are considered examples of the very opposite (someone arrogant and righteous). As I said, a good example of how far misunderstanding can go.

[polishgenius]

I think the real point has gotten a bit mixed up over the years, especially given a few fantasy readers' irrational tendency to blame the editors for everything that goes wrong for a book (and, curiously, never, ever anything that goes right).

Erikson's work goes through his editor, who edits the books (obviously), but Erikson only has time for one draft. He does, by his own admission, little-to-no rewriting or redrafting during the writing process, and that single draft goes off for editing followed by publication.

My original comment was not entirely serious (though it was a bit), but: what I was suggesting wasn't that Erikson's books are never edited, but that a lot of things that an editor may have questioned in regards to the necessity of their inclusion might have been left in because Erikson said they're necessary for later. I mean, quite a few of them are, although I would like to know how aware his publishers were early on that significant portions of the series right from go were never intended to be finished within the series.

On the point about the extra books that's true, but this is the climax of a main story arc and there's not likely to be much confusion about what applies directly here and what doesn't.

I should also say that easy as it is to take pops at Erikson for not drafting properly, because no matter what Gormenghast spouts about "what we know" followed within seconds by "presumably" it is a flaw in writing terms, he does have a point that Erikson does so coz he's determined to see through a commitment he made to deliver a book a year and not because that's how he thinks a book should be written.

[Shryke]

Not many writers write the full book and then write a second copy of it anew. It's really hard to pinpoint objectively a failure of process here.

Alot of authors do rewrites though. Something Erikson doesn't really do at all. He writes one day, polishes what he wrote that day the next morning and then that's it. Never touches it again as far as he's ever said.

And it shows. His work is meandering and just seems to wander off to whatever strikes his fancy at the time and never feels like it's been all pulled together into a cohesive whole.

And that's not even touching on his apparently 100% refusal to edit his own work so it's in line with the previous books in the "series".

[Gormenghast]

Alot of authors do rewrites though. Something Erikson doesn't really do at all. He writes one day, polishes what he wrote that day the next morning and then that's it. Never touches it again as far as he's ever said.

I still think that the great majority of writers do not do complete rewrites. It merely means that he doesn't let pass weeks before he revises something. He writes something, revises it. The thing is touched again after advance reading, and then again by editing (what happens right now).

And that's not even touching on his apparently 100% refusal to edit his own work so it's in line with the previous books in the "series".

And where this "apparent 100% refusal" is to be found?

[Gormenghast]

I think the real point has gotten a bit mixed up over the years, especially given a few fantasy readers' irrational tendency to blame the editors for everything that goes wrong for a book (and, curiously, never, ever anything that goes right).

Curiously?

How could anyone "praise" an editor since the reader has absolutely no clue about what that editor did concretely.

In the end you can ONLY judge the writer because it's him who writes those words. You just can't say nor even remotely guess if the editor did a good job or not.

[polishgenius]

Gormenghast, no-one is implying that Erikson writes his books stream-of-consciousness with no revision nor suggesting that he should rewrite the entire book from scratch once finished (or that many authors do that). The point is that he doesn't check his writing for consistency and continuity errors and adjust accordingly. Admittedly some are minor enough that editors should have caught them - gender changes, timeline incosistencies caused by simple date mentions like the Barghast in Reaper's Gale or Karsa hearing about the siege of Pale - but others are more intrinsic problems and things that would probably have been caught on a proper reflection of the work as a whole - the complete absence of Paran's otataral sword in MoI, the more intrinsic timeline issues in TtH, for example.

[The Evil Hat]

This I can live with. You seem to be 'normal' about it (no offense meant). I appreciate your posts and recommendations. And thanks for 'City Of Saints And Madmen'. I've ordered it already.

We'll, I suppose normal can't be that bad a description, so I'll take it, and I hope you enjoy City of Saints and Madmen.

When it comes to Erikson's continuity, I've got to agree with the detractors. The main problem with it, for me, is the irony that this is a series where it is so vital to put together clues on your own. So, on the one hand, nothing's spelled out and you are expected to assemble, say, the empire's history on your own. Okay, cool, that's pretty interesting...but there are also these errors throughout, so sometimes you've stumbled upon some awesome secret and sometimes you've just run into Erikson's lack of editing. i'm talking about like when Wert (I believe it was Wert, if not, sorry) tried to assemble the timeline of Karsa's journeys, but they simply couldn't work out. Or how Letheras is a continent wholly unknown to the Malazan Empire, yet a character has a Letherii rug (or portrait, can't remember which) in their home. Huh? Being wrong for external reasons half the time really dampens any desire to connect the dots on your own, I think.

[Gormenghast]

Also: everyone probably remembers about what is considered the biggest Deus Ex Machina in GotM, the sudden, unmotivated appearance of the Azath house right at the end of the book to take out the big mean baddie.

I defined this a "DEM" in that book, but not one in the greater scope of the series, since the role of the Azath is coherent with the much bigger picture. Its introduction is DEM-like, but not its purpose and role in the structure of the story.

Now on Tor reread they are pointing out that it may not be a DEM even within the context of the single book, and that there's a perfectly coherent explanation.

What they noticed is that the Azath house doesn't grow out of nothing as everyone thinks, but it grows out of a *seed*. The "finnest" was actually an acorn. The Jaghut who imprisoned the tyrant are those who chose to use, curiously, an "acorn" instead of another random object. Why? Not on a odd whim, as one may think, but for a concrete reason. The acorn is not a plain acorn, but an Azath seed. This means that those Jaghut imagined that the tyrant could be freed, and so prepared a "safety plan" in the case they weren't anymore around to prevent the worse. A plan that has been there for thousands years. Thinking about cause-effect and wise millenarian beings ;) The curious choice of the finnest as an "acorn" has been highlighted in the text in a number of occasions if someone paid attention. A little bit of foreshadowing.

If all this is confirmed I think it's rather cool. Could have used a slightly bit of better exposition, though.

[Gormenghast]

Gormenghast, no-one is implying that Erikson writes his books stream-of-consciousness with no revision nor suggesting that he should rewrite the entire book from scratch once finished (or that many authors do that). The point is that he doesn't check his writing for consistency and continuity errors and adjust accordingly.

With that I agree. The problem is that many ARE definitely using the "no revision" argument as the proof that what Erikson writes must be shit stylistically.

I agree that the tight schedule has given consistency problems. I also think that he couldn't write the series properly without keeping that pace. So I see those problems as sort of necessary.

I'm also the one who said that Erikson should revise the books NOW that the series is over. Now and only now. That's my subjective opinion.

[SecretSquirrel]

Well, I got to page 289 and I had to put it down. Tattersail's explanation of the hound just did me in for now.

Just before that, it was Lorn's reaction to Tattersail's old crime of letting her whole family get killed (for no other reason, it seems, than to have this lame scene.)

This thing is giving me a headache. I began to complain about it today to my friend.

I guess what began to bother me a lot also was some of the descriptions, like "Lorn froze" and the word "intervention" being used in casual mideval conversation. Some of the adjectives really bug me also.

Stephen R. Donaldson recommended this book on the back cover. It has a lot in common with the style of the Thomas Covenant books he did, which were kind of flat in places. I guess I can forgive Donaldson because he wrote The Mirrior of Her Dreams.

I pulled out Tad Williams Shadowmarch and started reading that instead.

Good luck with this, and thanks for all the fish.

[Werthead]

I still think that the great majority of writers do not do complete rewrites. It merely means that he doesn't let pass weeks before he revises something. He writes something, revises it. The thing is touched again after advance reading, and then again by editing (what happens right now).

The majority of fantasy authors do multiple drafts (two, three, sometimes five, and in Ian Irvine's case, a mind-boggling twenty), though, even the ones who deliver a book a year like Erikson (such as Sanderson). Jordan used to write a chapter, go back and revise and redraft it again (and sometimes again) before moving on. We know in great detail of Tolkien and Martin's obsessive rewriting habits. Saying, "Well, most other fantasy writers don't complete multiple drafts," is simply untrue. With Erikson himself we know that he had more time to write and rewrite MoI (which had, by circumstances, one complete rewrite), which is regularly cited as the best book in the series with the most tragic and emotionally wrenching scenes, showing the benefits of the redrafting process.

As I have said repeatedly, Malazan impresses because Erikson is so (relatiely) coherent and on-the-ball with his first draft, far moreso than most authors (and it'd be interesting to read one of the very first drafts of The Eye of the World or A Game of Thrones for comparison). The many inconsistencies and errors would indeed be picked out by a second draft (it is notable that the book with the fewest timeline concerns is the one where Erikson thanks ICE for going through the MS specifically looking for them), but there is no time for them. This is purely Erikson's own fault, since no-one as far as I know told him that his books have to be 1,300 pages each and every time, no matter the requirements of the individual novel. If he'd written shorter, tighter novels (and not necessarily 'short' books, say between the 750 pages of GotM and the 900 of DHG), they'd be easier to check for issues and not suffer from the series' pacing problems.

[MinDonner]

Honestly, these quotes belong in MinDonners 'Mocking Threads'. And she would do them a world of good - this thread is really obstinate.

Sorry dude, I love Erikson. Despite his (many and increasing) flaws, there's still enough awesome to compensate for his dubious prose. If I'm complaining about him here, it's the frustration of a slightly-betrayed fan who wishes he'd just stop being so arrogant about his writing and just bloody proofread it properly in the first place.

[Gormenghast]

With Erikson himself we know that he had more time to write and rewrite MoI (which had, by circumstances, one complete rewrite), which is regularly cited as the best book in the series with the most tragic and emotionally wrenching scenes, showing the benefits of the redrafting process.

I don't want to argue with you, especially about something as pointless as this.

I'll just say that MoI is a very bad example of rewriting doing something good to Erikson's writing. I think the writing in MoI is worse than both DG and HoC. It's a novel with a lot of wasted potential. It's also widely known that the reason why MoI stands out among the rest is not because of the writing is improved, but simply because the ambition and import of the plot are huge. Merely plot points that are powerful in that book, no matter how well they are written.

Even worse, MoI is one book with a lot of contradictions/consistency problems toward GotM. So it's really not a good example to motivate that assumption. I don't know how long it took Erikson to write HoC, but it's the better written of those I read, and the one that is most consistent/coherent with everything else, and the one that shows the most how Erikson improved and is keeping a tight control of everything he does.

The many inconsistencies and errors would indeed be picked out by a second draft (it is notable that the book with the fewest timeline concerns is the one where Erikson thanks ICE for going through the MS specifically looking for them), but there is no time for them. This is purely Erikson's own fault, since no-one as far as I know told him that his books have to be 1,300 pages each and every time, no matter the requirements of the individual novel.

I agree with that, but I'll say again that slowing down a 10 book series likely means losing momentum. Losing momentum means getting stuck in a swamp, which means that the series will go nowhere and will lose, instead of gaining, its consistence. You don't start to write 10 book series if you can't keep that momentum.

The time for revisions should be now, with the series wrapped up. That's how you "revise" properly a huge work like this one.

[Lord of Rhinos]

AAARRRGGGHHH. I never read one of those books. I am sorry, if my opinion displeases you, but these words set up nothing more than dread. Dread of the words I would be about to read next. And not in the sense of 'mood for the scene' but in the sense 'what dread wording and metaphorising will I have to endure next time I dare to open my eyes?'.

I wasn't making judgments about the quality of the prose. I was pointing out that it was a piece of writing that primes the first time readers expectations and the re-reader will find foreshadowing they didn't see before. Erikson put forward the idea over on Tor.com that he writes like a short story writer and gave some examples, none of which seemed particularly compelling to me, of that. I was pointing out that something like the first paragraph in Gardens of the Moon works for both sets of readers. I think his use of foreshadowing and thematic elements can be incorporated smoothly into the narrative without disrupting it and that major issues are actually to be found elsewhere.

If you dislike the prose, you dislike the prose. That's pretty much an immediate bounce from the book and ensures you won't be back.

Why? Not on a odd whim, as one may think, but for a concrete reason. The acorn is not a plain acorn, but an Azath seed. This means that those Jaghut imagined that the tyrant could be freed, and so prepared a "safety plan" in the case they weren't anymore around to prevent the worse. A plan that has been there for thousands years. Thinking about cause-effect and wise millenarian beings ;)

Which of course begs the question "why not just kill 'em?" I think there might have been an explanation for Raest but there have been so many ancient imprisoned beings in this series that I have to ask why. Scabanderi and Silchas is probably the best example. Scabanderi could just kill him but instead says he can't afford to....well I want to know why not. What inspires you to spare the life of a mortal enemy instead of ending it? Karsa finds that imprisoned Forkrut Assasil and that Jaghut being crushed to death, but I want to know why'd you do that to an enemy instead of just killing them.

So it's really not a good example to motivate that assumption. I don't know how long it took Erikson to write HoC' date=' but it's the better written of those I read, and the one that is most consistent/coherent with everything else, and the one that shows the most how Erikson improved and is keeping a tight control of everything he does. [/quote']

HoC features the grand entrance of Karsa Orlong, Destroyer of Timelines. Consistence is not one of its virtues.

[Gormenghast]

Which of course begs the question "why not just kill 'em?"

I don't have the knowledge to know the motivations of each case, but in general they are trapped when they can't be killed. In Raest example we see him simply moving from a place to another, not being killed. Surely not because someone decided to preserve him.

Some powers doesn't seem easily defeated, but we know for example that T'lan Imass definitely kill Jaghut, when they have the possibility.

The Crippled God is again another power that could be just weakened and not eliminated once for all.

HoC features the grand entrance of Karsa Orlong, Destroyer of Timelines. Consistence is not one of its virtues.

Yes, but consistency problems happen outside HoC. There are none between that book and those that precede it.

Erikson, in his own, words pleads for the readers trust and insists how important it is and yet he abuses it time and again. I love putting together puzzle pieces but the closer you examine Malazan the less sense it makes. The broad history of the empire is super sweet but none of the details make sense. Which is very disappointing because if done right it could be so, so good.

Usually things make sense in my experience. There are sometimes aspects that need some smoothing, some characters whose actions and motivations are pushed a bit too far.

It's the true problem, as you can never say if something doesn't make sense because Erikson made a mistake or simply because you weren't able to catch the hints. I've been proved wrong many times, so I'm usually prudent to call for actual mistakes.

[polishgenius]

Yes, but consistency problems happen outside HoC. There are none between that book and those that precede it.

Yes there are. The Fall of Pale, which is the start of GotM, happens during Karsa's time as a Malazan prisoner. That leaves maybe a year, being generous, for him to finish his journey and get settled into Sha'ik's camp, when he's clearly been there for much longer than that, being a trusted member of the circle.

[The Evil Hat]

Perhaps they were intrigued by his oddness enough to meet with him personally and then saw his competence? It's not particularly likely, but I don't think it would be impossible for him to be a bodyguard in a year; it's damn obvious from being around him for five minutes that he's decently strong, at the least.

[polishgenius]

If he was a simple bodyguard, sure, but he's more than that. Leoman regards him as an old friend.

There's no real argument that it isn't a mistake, Erikson's admitted as much.

[fionwe1987]

If he was a simple bodyguard, sure, but he's more than that. Leoman regards him as an old friend.

There's no real argument that it isn't a mistake, Erikson's admitted as much.

Didn't Leoman meet Karsa when they were enslaved or something? My memory is hazy on HoC.

[kungtotte]

Karsa first travelled/escaped with that Nom character, and it wasn't until they both ended up in Seven Cities (after months of travel) that Karsa first met Leoman. And yeah, he was a slave, or captured, or whatever.

Suffice it to say, Karsa exists wholly outside the timeline of Malazan. There are other timeline issues here and there but none quite so egregious as Karsa Orlong.