Malazan

[Trencher]

I've recently read Deadhouse Gates. I'd read Gardens of the Moon a long time before that. I didn't finish DG though. I fell asleep twice while reading, and then I decided I'd had enough (at page 647). It just doesn't do anything for me. It seems te me Erikson needs a gazillion words to say nothing really. The characters are cardboard cut-outs, IMO. There was nothing in there that made me want to keep on reading, or find out what was going to happen next.

As to the depth, I couldn't detect any. It's just an overlarge collection of senseless violence and war. I have to say I agree with those who say that Erikson is wrong to say that his work takes more concentration. It just doesn't go anywhere. Erikson and Esslemont went out of their way to create an enormously elaborate world, then proceeded to fill it with mundane tripe. Or at least Erikson did, I haven't read Esslemont, and I'm not exactly likely to.

Those idiot Soletaken and D'ivers battling it out in the desert because they are all drawn there made absolutely no sense, either.

My feelings exactly on Deadhouse Gates. I almost finished it, but just had to stop wasting my time (and I heard later the ending was another Deus Ex Machina). I was only reading it since a few people said it ws better than GoTM. It wasn't. Flat characters who I could only tell apart by their names and ranks. Felisin was just annoying. I was hoping she and a few other main characters would die so maybe Erikson could replace them with something more interesting. Plus the fact that Erikson knows no restraint made all the random action pretty boring.

[Eurytus]

Felisin was just annoying. I was hoping she and a few other main characters would die so maybe Erikson could replace them with something more interesting.

Don't get your hopes up. Erikson tends to do the exact opposite. Its actually worse than Jordan because he doesn't just bypass the only interesting characters for entire sections of books, he actually kills them off so you know that you're left with all the identical marines and Erikson's oh-so-obvious favourites like Kruppe and Tehol to "entertain" you.

[Blaine]

It's not an "assumption", it's a proven fact. You can read thousands of messages of readers everywhere that confirm they had troubles getting into Bakker and Erikson works, that they had an hard time because of too many characters, and too much density.

No, it's not a proven fact. I also read thousands of messages saying that Erikson (not Bakker) is a terrible prose stylist with nondescript two-dimensional characters. So I guess by your definition that's fact too. So why is one more right than the other?

Please quit trying to defend Erikson's lack of talent as "depth."

[kungtotte]

A cheeky way of putting it is that Erikson has width rather than depth. His writing is only covering the thin veneer of people, societies and civilisations but he writes about all of the people, societies and civilisations in his world.

[Arthmail]

The Chain of Dogs was one of the best sequences that i have EVER read in a book, and had that book been entirely centered around it, it would have been epic.

The problem with Eriksons books however, is not that they are deep. Its that people confuse hard to understand because of a dense plot with what the fuck is going on he is not telling me anything.

Readers are supposed to have a certain amount of presience when it comes to the books that they are reading, but Erikson plays it all so close to his chest that you can't understand half of what is going on because he has given you no basis from which to try and understand. Shit. Just. Happens.

And it doesn't help that there are massive inconsistencies.

Also, he kind of lost me during one of his books, when some swordsman...i can't remember his name...is defending some building and he is killing so many bad guys that the house is litterally bursting at the seems with piled corpses and dripping blood. No better than Salvatore and Drizzt at that point.

[kungtotte]

That fighter would be Gruntle when he's being all tigery during the battle of Capustan. But in Erikson's defence Gruntle isn't actually killing all of those baddies by himself, he does have help from his little rag-tag company.

[Shryke]

The Chain of Dogs was one of the best sequences that i have EVER read in a book, and had that book been entirely centered around it, it would have been epic.

The problem with Eriksons books however, is not that they are deep. Its that people confuse hard to understand because of a dense plot with what the fuck is going on he is not telling me anything.

Readers are supposed to have a certain amount of presience when it comes to the books that they are reading, but Erikson plays it all so close to his chest that you can't understand half of what is going on because he has given you no basis from which to try and understand. Shit. Just. Happens.

And it doesn't help that there are massive inconsistencies.

This right here. It's also a part of my growing disastifaction with the series.

Beyond each book just seeming to get worse and worse, each book is also just getting more and more confusing. Everything is becoming LESS clear over time, not more. And he's getting even worse at not explaining anything and actually actively going out of his way to not show things that would make it clearer wtf was going on.

Basically, as Arthmail said, the reason Erikson is hard to understand is because he writes to deliberately obfuscate everything that is actually happening and the context there of.

[Arthmail]

Obfuscate is a good word that i do not use often enough. I think i am going to go and obfuscate someone today.

Or get a t-shirt that says:

You've been Obfuscated.....in the face. (i know, i know. The last part makes no sense, but it seems to fit. And its all kind of the point.)

[Swordfish]

I have to admit, i was lsoing interest in this series, but I'm about halfway through Reapers Gale and it's holding my attention.

We'll see if that holds up.

Overall, i'd say it's worth it.

[wolverine]

Can't make myself pick it up after struggling through Toll The Hounds, by far my least favorite book in the series and worst book I have read in years.

[williamjm]

This right here. It's also a part of my growing disastifaction with the series.

Beyond each book just seeming to get worse and worse, each book is also just getting more and more confusing. Everything is becoming LESS clear over time, not more. And he's getting even worse at not explaining anything and actually actively going out of his way to not show things that would make it clearer wtf was going on.

Basically, as Arthmail said, the reason Erikson is hard to understand is because he writes to deliberately obfuscate everything that is actually happening and the context there of.

I agree, going back to Erikson's comments about trust, I'd say I trust Erikson less with each passing book. In the early days I was happy to wait for an explanation of various plot points, that the less comprehensible subplots like the Jade Statues would one day be explained, but as the series went on it only rarely offered any explanation and for every piece of clarity it did offer there would be further obfuscation somewhere else. With only the tenth book left to read, I'm doubtful that it will explain many of the major plot issues - hopefully it will explain some of them, like what Shadowthrone and Cotillion's Master Plan was or what the Jade statues plotline was all about, and if there is enough explanation then I might look more favourably on the series as a whole but I'm not sure I believe it will offer all that much explanation.

I found Return of the Crimson Guard to be a much more enjoyable read than the last three books in the main Malazan series in large part because the storyline was more coherent and more clearly explained and I wouldn't say it is significantly lacking in depth to Erikson's books.

My feelings exactly on Deadhouse Gates. I almost finished it, but just had to stop wasting my time (and I heard later the ending was another Deus Ex Machina)

Actually, there isn't a major Deus Ex Machina at the end of Deadhouse Gates, although one character does survive due to a minor DEM. That said, if you hadn't been enjoying the book up until that point I doubt the ending would have done much for you even if it is one of the high points in the series.

[Seli]

This right here. It's also a part of my growing disastifaction with the series.

Beyond each book just seeming to get worse and worse, each book is also just getting more and more confusing. Everything is becoming LESS clear over time, not more. And he's getting even worse at not explaining anything and actually actively going out of his way to not show things that would make it clearer wtf was going on.

Basically, as Arthmail said, the reason Erikson is hard to understand is because he writes to deliberately obfuscate everything that is actually happening and the context there of.

Strangely enough, I think for me this is actually one of the reasons I really enjoy the series. No need to keep track of every detail (just some random ones, but my brain seems to be suited for that task). Some big lines that go nowhere. No need to keep close attention to personal motivations. Reminds me of history in that way.

A huge canvass which at times doesn't add to the story, but often adds to the world (with some things repeated a bit too often I have to admit).

[Arthmail]

Strangely enough, I think for me this is actually one of the reasons I really enjoy the series. No need to keep track of every detail (just some random ones, but my brain seems to be suited for that task). Some big lines that go nowhere. No need to keep close attention to personal motivations. Reminds me of history in that way.

A huge canvass which at times doesn't add to the story, but often adds to the world (with some things repeated a bit too often I have to admit).

Eriksons conceit is that he thinks that this is some sort of epic history, and that because our own histoy can be such a confusing mish-mash, then his can too. But i am the fucking reader, i am not looking at this thing from ground level with the rest of the grunts. I am god, and as such i actually want to see some of what is going on. I mean for fuck sakes, if he explained a quarter of his plot threads the series would double in size. Instead of trying to take us to every cool place in Malazan, and instead of meeting every lvl 64 badass, finish a fucking notion and tell me a GOD DAMNED STORY. Because, in the end, thats what it is. A story. Its not a history book, and we are not historians trying to piece together what happened at some obscure time in our past. We're people that paid good money to read a story and learn what happens in that story.

[Gormenghast]

Go on, really, if you enjoy running in circles and slap each other shoulder.

Just a quick remind that I'm curious of what people may think of what's written here: http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/arts-culture/creativity/steven-eriksons-notes-on-a-crisis-back-to-the-craft-of-writing/

What you think specifically about the arguments he brings up there, regardless of what you think about his books or him as a person.

I'll check back the thread in a year or two to see if there has been any progress :)

[Horza]

Ah, more persuasion and sweet reason. How do you manage to get so haughty over a fantasy series, Gormy?

[Kalbear]

It's very easy to get haughty over something you don't actually read.

[Old Nan]

Going through Gormenghast's lifeasahuman thing, some things did stand out.

They come across as clunky, wooden, and sometimes ridiculously obvious – in other words, the dialogue doesn't sound like 'real' conversation.

Sure, but Erikson goes all the way to the other extreme; instead of infodumping, his characters ramble on about philosophy and politics which have next to no meaning in the grand scheme of things and are equally unrealistic. His worlds are populated with liberal arts undergraduates doing internships on Capitol Hill that have somehow been transported into the bodies of medieval peasant soldiers.

You know the classic fantasy scene from AD&D where you walk into a tavern and ask somebody something and they actually tell you everything you need to know? Hate 'em. No, hate's too gentle a word. Despise.

Why he thinks getting answers to questions is unrealistic is simply beyond me, but his aversion to it is certainly loud and clear.

As writer it's like this: you invented them, now you owe them. You owe them their space, their lives, their humanity. Maybe you won't show much of all that, but it still needs to be there – or, of not there, then what needs acknowledging is that character's right to that life, a right that must be respected. Writers who manipulate characters probably manipulate real people, too.

Yeah, this is the central bullshit here. "Right to life" – now not just for fetuses but for minor characters in fiction.

[Arthmail]

Your too smarmy Gorm, its boring.

As for Eriksons blog. I could go either way on his points. But as has been mentioned, the pussy footing is so extensive that nothing of substance seems to happen.

[Gormenghast]

His worlds are populated with liberal arts undergraduates doing internships on Capitol Hill that have somehow been transported into the bodies of medieval peasant soldiers.

Medieval peasant soldiers are protesting for the discrimination ;)

Why he thinks getting answers to questions is unrealistic is simply beyond me

But the purpose of that article in not just analyzing his style, but also explaining well the reasons of his choices.

Which is the whole reason why I posted it here and asked to read it: Erikson explains why he made certain choices, the way he conceives characterization and dialogue.

You either wonder "why" or merely state that his writing is shit.

There he explains his motives for choosing and using that style, what writing means to him and all the rest. If you wonder why he writes that way instead of what you consider good characterization and story, he explains why. If you wonder why he writes 1000 pages book with nothing in them he explains what's in there. So you should read, understand his reasons, and then make up your mind.

You don't have to agree or appreciate, but maybe you may understand him better as a writer.

[Gormenghast]

Yeah, this is the central bullshit here. "Right to life" – now not just for fetuses but for minor characters in fiction.

This is worth elaborating.

If you don't put value in what you create then one one else will. EVER.

If you think you can make and unmake a character liberally because in the end it's just fiction and matters zero, then you'll never be able to write one.

It wasn't long ago that Martin wrote that he considers his characters as his kids, and that he doesn't tolerate fan fiction because no one should touch his kids. So who's exaggerating?

That "right to life" is probably a principle that is common to all writers, and not just Erikson.