Malazan

[Gormenghast]

Erikson replied to the Q&A on Tor. I asked a bunch of questions, and, believe it or not, many of those were based on the discussion on this thread.

So you can see his answers about his writing/editing process, inconsistencies and the rest.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/09/questions-for-steven-erikson-on-gardens-of-the-moon-start-asking#134286

[Gormenghast]

About 160 pages into Ian Cameron Esslemont's Stonewielder, and so far it shows much more promise than Return of the Crimson Guard.

Moreover, the author's writing skills have improved, giving him a much better narrative voice.

Patrick

I remind you that you gave RotCG 8.5! And it showed more promise than Night of Knives!

[pat5150]

Let's be honest: Other than being Malazan canon, Night of Knives didn't have that much going for it.

In terms of storytelling, Return of the Crimson Guard was very good, but the narrative was clunky in several portions of the book.

So far, Stonewielder is better on both fronts!

Patrick

[The Evil Hat]

I found Night of Knives generally better than Return of the Crimson Guard. It was generally mediocre except for when it was piggybacking on the foundations that Erikson laid, but it was always competent. Return of the Crimson Guard has some definite highlights, far above anything that Night of Knives achieved, but it's also a horribly meandering mess with sub par prose and piss poor characterization.

[Gormenghast]

I didn't like NoK much too. Kiska was not handled well and didn't behave plausibly at all. Too plain character, and also too plain writing compared to Erikson. It lacked some depth and meaning, and the book as a whole didn't really add anything worthwhile to the series.

[polishgenius]

NoK is a curio, and really only to be read for the story. It's alright, though.

RotCG, on the other hand, is imo the best Malazan book since Midnight Tides. And better than HoC and GotM too. His prose isn't as showy as Erikson's, especially for action, but he's much better at characters and especially inter-character relationships (both the romantic kind and not), and there's a much better coherence about it than the latter Malazan books.

[The Evil Hat]

NoK is a curio, and really only to be read for the story. It's alright, though.

RotCG, on the other hand, is imo the best Malazan book since Midnight Tides. And better than HoC and GotM too. His prose isn't as showy as Erikson's, especially for action, but he's much better at characters and especially inter-character relationships (both the romantic kind and not), and there's a much better coherence about it than the latter Malazan books.

Wait, Esslemont is better at characterization? Most of the characters in Return struggled to achieve a single dimension, most failing at even that.

[Werthead]

If there was a phrase I'd ever use to describe Forgotten Realms, 'exceptionally complex' would not be it.

If you're basing your knowledge of the setting off the novels, particularly the famous ones like Salvatore or (spit!) Greenwood, then I would agree.

However, including the gaming materials (particularly Steven Schend's work on the setting in 1993-99 where he went to town on taking it away from generic D&D stuff), the FR setting is, by some considerable margin, the most heavily-detailed fantasy world ever created, with dozens of major races (most with myriad sub-races, ethnic groupings within those races and political divisions within them), an extremely detailed history stretching back several hundred thousand years, major changes in the pantheon spearheaded by 'Chosen' (some may say, 'Ascended') mortals and a wide geographic spread incorporating numerous islands, continents, nations, cities and planes of existence.

In fact, I do wonder sometimes if Erikson protests about the Forgotten Realms too much. Of all the other fantasy worlds out there, it's the one that resembles the Malazan setting the most, except of course it came about far earlier.

[Gormenghast]

The Greeks wouldn't agree.

[polishgenius]

Wait, Esslemont is better at characterization? Most of the characters in Return struggled to achieve a single dimension, most failing at even that.

Well, one man's fruit I suppose, but I found myself warming to new characters much quicker on the basis of personality (rather than wow, he's got cool tricks) and got a new slant on old ones too - Lasseen in particular is far more developed here than in Erikson's, where her actions in terms of kingdom-running just don't tally much with her behaviour. That's aided by his Malick, who's a much more insidious and sinister character than Erikson's version.

For new characters, the low-key romance between the two soldiers didn't make me want to hurt things the way a lot of Erikson's do, and Nait in one book became my second-favourite character in the series, behind Fiddler who's had more books than any other character in it to cement that status.

Kyle was crap, but he's no worse than Cutter.

[Old Nan]

The Greeks wouldn't agree.

The warren of Af'ro D'ite, eh?

[pat5150]

Map of the Lands of Fist (Korelri, Theft, etc) here.

Cheers,

Patrick

[Gormenghast]

On Tor Erikson continues to answer questions and it's hugely interesting.

But there's this part that could be quite controversial here since one could as well relate it to Martin (even if I'm sure it was far beyond the intent of Erikson, who would probably hate to see the quote used like this):

I write in a very linear fashion: no cut and paste at all. It's written how you see it: I don't recall ever moving anything in the text. Thinking on it, that's probably unusual. But bear in mind that I am always mindful of storytelling as a tradition and so I hold to it, as if the technology permitting me to do otherwise did not exist. Feels more organic, I suppose. I sometimes suspect that those writers who do the massive cut and paste are in fact disengaging their own storytelling talents, and maybe even 'cheating' in some respects. The challenge (in my opinion) comes with not simply trying out pieces to make up the puzzle, but in making every move, with every peice, a singular event. Not sure if I'm explaining this very well. Picture assembling a puzzle, but not testing a single piece; rather, every piece you pick up turns out to be the right one for the space. Making all the preliminary work internal, in your own head. To sit back and watch someone actually doing that would be bizarre, possibly even frightening. But the analogy actually breaks down a bit, given more thought, since fiction allows for some flexibility in making those pieces fit.

[Radio Changes]

Really, only Martin fans would see that quote as being Martin-related, and that's understandable because we see a lot of fantasy with a ASOIF lense.

[Arthmail]

On Tor Erikson continues to answer questions and it's hugely interesting.

But there's this part that could be quite controversial here since one could as well relate it to Martin (even if I'm sure it was far beyond the intent of Erikson, who would probably hate to see the quote used like this):

More bullshit.

[Old Nan]

No, it makes perfect sense, and it explains so much about why Malazan is so confusing.