Malazan

[RedEyedGhost]

Ran, thanks for looking into the search issue. :thumbsup:

1) please spoiler tag shit like that

You do realize it's fully visible in your quote, right? :P

[Errant Bard]

It's a tangent, but I agree with Lyanna that Felisin is one of the most compelling female characters in the SFF genre.

She's only special because other characters have abysmal characterization, while she's merely formulaic. Put her in a decently written book with nice characterization and she disappears.

[Errant Bard]

Formulaic wasn't the right word, I was thinking of the writing, but not what was written. "original but badly written" isn't quite as snappy. Anyway you seem to forget the (non-existent) characterization before, and everything that happens to her/what she becomes after. Can a character really be "one of the best female in Fantasy" just because of an original arc that can be indeed summed up as

"she became a crack-whore." (Note that that role is not an attack on the character, it's what she is at one point: selling her body for drugs, and security, and it's better than every other characterization in the books)

, truly? Especially when what is praised about her, everytime is not what is written, but what readers think is not written but meant: it's in the readers mind, not in Erikson's (he shows that with about every other character he has, AND with how he writes the rest of her story, don't you agree?)

This girl kinda reminds me of a white canvas with a Rorschach pattern on it: just ink blots yet people from the same mindset keep seeing a butterfly. That's the point where Mileages Vary, I suppose.

[Errant Bard]

the Mybe, or Tattersail, or some of the soldiers (names elude me, currently).

Ugh, the Mybe is so one-track and bashing our head over her misery as to destroy any illusion that there is subtlety there somewhere, Tattersail is just all over the place, a sort of amorphous characterization blob and the soldiers are just random mouthpieces for the author, who'll switch attitude (I cannot speak of personalities: they don't actually have personalities) with every scene. It's not really hard to be more powerful than that :)

[Gormenghast]

This girl kinda reminds me of a white canvas with a Rorschach pattern on it: just ink blots yet people from the same mindset keep seeing a butterfly. That's the point where Mileages Vary, I suppose.

Yes, it's a matter of truthfulness (or even the abused and misused "gray" word used to define characters, that today is used to define just another stereotype).

Whether you like it or not in literature form is up to you, but that's exactly the deliberate purpose of Erikson's writing. If you recognize it then it means he was successful.

[Gormenghast]

the soldiers are just random mouthpieces for the author, who'll switch attitude (I cannot speak of personalities: they don't actually have personalities) with every scene. It's not really hard to be more powerful than that :)

Take Gardens of the Moon. On my first read I could hardly match a Bridgeburner name with the corresponding character, if I did the description of the personality of that character would still be rather limited.

I'm following Tor re-read of the same book now. With the struggle to memorize names and context out of the way I'm discovering a whole new layer in characterization that was almost entirely missing on my first read. Dialogue that was before just between anonymous masks is now consistent with the character and unexpectedly rich in nuances. I feel like I'm reading a wholly different book. Not just consistent but filled to the brim with cross-references that required the insight I didn't have before. Things to glide over or just producing a big question mark to then move on with the reading. The last two pages I've read about Rallick Nom gave an introspection and depth to the character that I didn't remember was there, written really well. The tension of Kalam and Quick Ben when they are found by Sorry, and the realization that what they thought was correct, and that it meant they would be dead. Then the scene with Whiskeyjack waiting for them with the rest of the squad, a scene where every line adds something to the characterization and true friendship of the whole squad, the dialogue between them, and then the arrival of Quick Ben who cringes in front of WJ, and WJ losing his patience. An undeniable feel that these characters have been together for a really long time, and not just since the beginning of the written page. Characters that come out of the page, with natural dialogue between them and drawn from they are, and not directed to the reader.

That scene is as great as any Black Company scene written by Glen Cook, and it's from a book that is far from the best Erikson delivered when it comes to characterization.

The confusion and inconsistency isn't of the characters, it is of the reader. The books pretend a reader to memorize and familiarize way more than it is possible, way more than what it is reasonable to ask, and that's why re-reads are so revelatory in this series about both characters and plot. The confusion of the reader is undeniable because the series represents the far opposite of "accessibility". It's actually a big flaw the series has. It is inimical, too dense and unwieldy. But the characterization is there in that ink and it is consistent. It requires more patience than usual because you only get quick glimpses at a big number of characters, and they only become "real" characters with a lot of pages and time, time that is definitely not easily available among readers who are already having an hard time getting through a so dense book and digesting the way Erikson writes.

Erikson's characterization can be compared to an impressionist painter who only delicately dabs and sketches. It will take time to familiarize and recognize a character for what it actually is, and to appreciate the panting that at a first glance appeared as just a confusion of random colors. The forms are in the painting, but it takes time to make the eye used to them and recognize them for their value.

This opposed to a traditional type of characterization (neither better nor worse, just different) where you stay in the mind of a character for the long haul. Full-on introspection that begins giving you the context of where and how that person is living, what he feels, what he loves, his fears, his desires. And that makes a reader familiarize and understand with the character. Identify himself and so "caring" for the personal story and feel emotional attachment.

The heritage of "modern" fantasy was not in delivering characters that are "gray". But in forcing the reader into their PoV. We often have warring factions, but we zoom into both of them, taking both sides. Any of the recent fantasy with gray characters could be turned into solid black and white by just removing the corresponding PoVs. Without motivations and alternative observation points, every story becomes polarized.

The thing Erikson successfully or unsuccessfully tries to realize with his characterization is about starting to show that "stories" exist with the characters, but also in spite of them. The real world chews characters and spits them out, is disdainful of personal stories. A book can usually follow the life of a character through an ideal arc, whose premises define its conclusion. But that's the nice trick and deceit that literature does to the real world. The illusion that there is "sense" and "meaning". Beginnings and ends. Justice. Payoff. We create "meaning" out of a meaningless, unjust world. Lives are cut short and no one actually dies only once he solved his issues. Flaws, imperfections, lack of meaning and especially the lack of understanding of others are the things that are always true. Humanity is about the damnation of the deceit of seeing "meaning" where there is none. It's a tragedy, and the Malazan series is written as a tragedy. It's not "fantasy", it's a 1:1 copy of this world, an only slightly misshapen mirror.

To grieve is a gift best shared. As a song is shared.

Deep in the caves, the drums beat. Glorious echo to the herds whose thundering hoofs celebrate what it is to be alive, to run as one, to roll in life's rhythm. This is how, in the cadence of our voice, we serve nature's greatest need.

Facing nature, we are the balance.

Ever the balance to chaos.

"in the cadence of our voice" means a written page. Language. Or what only separates humanity from the rest of life forms. Nature is the chaos from where we desperately scrape meaning.

With that lacerating truth in the mind, Erikson realizes characters whose story (and characterization) is shred and tattered. Suspicion and opaqueness are traits that are true in our world. And if a foe suddenly turns into a possible ally it's not "inconsistency", it's understanding. Full-on introspection doesn't work like that even for ourselves. (Foster Wallace attempts "true" full-on introspection with the result that it generates a tremendous whirlpool that either sucks you in or hurls you away) We don't have the privilege of a personal writer who overlooks what we do and inscribes meaning and finality into our lives. We are opaque and uncertain even to ourselves, even less to one that merely observes. Meaning is not "found" outside, it is created within. The story of the Malazan series is unmindful of characters, it's up to the characters to find their path, only to see it end abruptly. And up to the reader to decide what to do with them.

The only journey that lay ahead of him was a short one, and he must walk it alone.

He was blind, but in this no more blind than anyone else. Death's precipice, whether first

glimpsed from afar or discovered with the next step, was ever a surprise. A promise of

the sudden cessation of questions, yet there were no answers waiting beyond. Cessation

would have to be enough. And so it must be for every mortal. Even as we hunger for

resolution. Or, even more delusional: redemption.

Now, after all this time, he was able to realize that every path eventually, inevitably

dwindled into a single line of footsteps. There, leading to the very edge. Then… gone.

And so, he faced only what every mortal faced. The solitude of death, and oblivion's final

gift that was indifference.

The Malazan series is not consolatory, it is about compassion and reconciliation.

[MinDonner]

Now I really want to start an "Erikson and Women" thread, but we already have two Malazan threads and one gender one on the front page... it can wait.

[Gormenghast]

Considering my post worked as a great exorcism in this thread, I'll continue the monologue.

Take "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy. The character of the father is probably one of the best I've ever read. Yet if you consider it, it's a rather archetypal character. It's the intended effect as the theme of that novel is the father-son relationship and the story is meant to be "universal". That's why it works. A father representing all fathers and a son representing all sons.

But at its core, in spite of all the ripping realism and explicit pornography of the daily activities, "The Road" is a strongly consolatory novel. Or that's the way I see it. Maybe slightly disguised since it feels bitter, but still desperately consolatory.

Now imagine if in the name of realism as the only credo the father died at some random point and the novel ended abruptly. It would be a disaster. Readers would be angry at the writer because he had broken an unspoken rule. The story would have lost its most important aspect: a meaning. Ending it abruptly would mean presenting an irrational story that would just trigger intolerance in the reader. Because as readers we accept to move through painful feelings, but only if in the end they come out somewhat justified, acceptable. Or rationalized.

That's what literature does: finding a sense. Reassure the reader that there's a finality. And the point of contact with Erikson, who refuses finality and sense, is not the delusive consolatory aspect, but the disillusioned reconciliation.

[Radio Changes]

...the soldiers are just random mouthpieces for the author, who'll switch attitude (I cannot speak of personalities: they don't actually have personalities) with every scene.

Well, I guess the fault lies in how you read and interpreted the series, because I feel like the soldiers have plenty of personality. Anyway, just an opinion of mine, but what do I know, I'm just some shmuck on the internet, and you seem to carry a lot of weight around these parts. Keep up the good work. :thumbsup:

[Humble Asskicker]

As much as I bash the series, I thought Felisin was a terrific character, and it baffles me when others dislike her, because I think she was so well drawn.

Malazan is a series I devoutly wanted to like. A decentralized examination of a sprawling fantasy world and its inhabitants, covered in ten huge books (even more, as it turns out) seemed like a dream come true. Jordan's work is heavily flawed, and GRRM takes forever and probably won't even complete his work, so maybe, I thought, Erikson would get it right. Which accounts for my bitterness, because while he does succeed in some elements, he's far worse in most others (worse than Jordan at his worst - probably on Goodkind level).

I'm glad some people can get something out of it. I wish I was one of 'em, because it would be a sweet deal.

[Errant Bard]

Well, I guess the fault lies in how you read and interpreted the series, because I feel like the soldiers have plenty of personality. Anyway, just an opinion of mine, but what do I know, I'm just some shmuck on the internet, and you seem to carry a lot of weight around these parts.

Uh, what? Where was it not my opinion, and how do I carry weight about Malazan around here? :worried:

I guess the "fault" is probably how I read the series, yes, but it appears, from experience, that many other posters I respect share the same opinion, so I don't feel too vindicated in trying to change that (besides, I think it's you who reads it wrong, and I actually don't enjoy reading Malazan anymore :P)

But anyway, about those interchangeable grunts, since I cannot prove a negative, could you describe two different personalities? (I'm not talking of non-grunts. Even though there is a case to be made for people like G and T Paran, or even Blend, Picker, Coltaine, or that drunk arachnophobic lieutenant, characters I loved, once. They have quirks, but a personality? Hard to see). I mean by personality something that shines through that can make me say, like, what a Jaime, Brienne, Pod, Ygritte, whatever, would do in a given situation. There doesn't seem to be any of that in malazan, the guys go one way or another at random, and everything feels like informed ability (remember that part in MoI when Paran comments on Quick Ben ego? meh)

And that's why I talked of Rorschach, about Felisin, because there is actually not much in the text, only projection of what readers want to see. I don't consider a Rorschach pattern to be a painting, or to have a meaning, or to be a masterpiece because it manages to evoke what's within yourself (or something).

[Gormenghast]

And that's why I talked of Rorschach, about Felisin, because there is actually not much in the text, only projection of what readers want to see. I don't consider a Rorschach pattern to be a painting, or to have a meaning, or to be a masterpiece because it manages to evoke what's within yourself (or something).

It's your problem to mistake ambivalence for randomness. There's absolutely nothing random about Felisin and her personality. Those who like the character don't like it on the basis of personal inventions. Personality is just more shown through action than being bluntly stated. Opposed to the insane level of redundancy that can be found in the WoT, where characters will repeat every five pages how they don't understand women, while the other friend surely would.

And off the top of my head the bunch of mountain guys Tyrion hires in A Game of Thrones do not actually shine in "personality". It's fair to say that, in all books, a character's personality is proportional to screen time. It's valid in Erikson's case as it is valid for Martin, Jordan and everyone else. So if you really have this urge to compare books that have nothing in common, at least apply the same canons when you do it. At the very least.

[End of Disc One]

I love the series and I don't give a damn about Felisin. Maybe I'm a chauvinist, but all the feminist discussions do not interest me at all, and I always hate it when threads on this board get derailed by them.

[Xereaux]

And off the top of my head the bunch of mountain guys Tyrion hires in A Game of Thrones do not actually shine in "personality". It's fair to say that, in all books, a character's personality is proportional to screen time. It's valid in Erikson's case as it is valid for Martin, Jordan and everyone else. So if you really have this urge to compare books that have nothing in common, at least apply the same canons when you do it. At the very least.

The difference here is that the "mountain guys" that Tyrion hires are not supposed to be main characters. They're in the story for as long as necessary: they do what Tyrion hired them to do, that's it. We don't see them appear two books later in a different plotline, they don't get chapters of their own. The random interchangeable Bridgeburners, on the other hand, ARE supposed to be important characters. I'm still unsure as to how Hedge and Fiddler are different, and those two are some of the more prominent Bridgeburners. When you throw in Blend, Spindle, and all the other randomly named Bridgeburners, and still can't tell the difference between any of them, I'd call that a distinct lack of personality, other than (doubtfully) a personality for the whole squad instead of individual personalities.

[Serious Callers Only]

No

[Migey]

No

Thank you very much for that intelligent and insightful post. Everything is suddenly clear now.

[David Selig]

Erikson is a weird case for me when it comes to characterisation. I personally think Felisin is an excellently developed character. There are a handful of others who are well developed too (Trull, Toc, etc) but a whole lot of underdeveloped and interchangeable "wise veteran" or "savage barbarian" cliches.

My impression is that when Erikson has more space at his disposal to develop a character, he's sometimes able to do a good job (though by no means always, since there are plenty of main character which aren't anything special in that respect), but in more limited space his results are pretty poor. Which makes it all the more baffling why he keeps on introducing more characters and increasing the number of PoV in each book to the point of near absurdity. Does anyone care about random Malazan grunt #345 anymore?

[MinDonner]

(remember that part in MoI when Paran comments on Quick Ben ego? meh)

There are definitely a load of informed attributes (Whiskeyjack's awesomeness, anyone? We are told that everyone just lurves him, but why oh why?), but Quick Ben is (IMO) not among them - his mischievous arrogance comes across very well, and he's one of the better characters. Of course, if you don't even think Felisin is that good then you're bound to disagree, but not everyone has such a blanket dismissal of Erikson's abilities.

[Serious Callers Only]

Thank you very much for that intelligent and insightful post. Everything is suddenly clear now.

You're welcome :)

[End of Disc One]

I'll just mark you down as a chauvinist who sees "feminist discussions" when there aren't any (sort of like Rush Limbaugh and his "feminazi" remarks), and we'll all just go forward from there.

Fine with me.