|
I love this series, definitely one of my favourite fantasy series.
On May 28 2011 15:26 ShadowDrgn wrote:
My biggest problem with the series is that the world isn't explained to the reader very well. I like fantasy worlds with some kind of consistent framework of rules supporting them so that things make sense, but in Malazan, every book just adds another magnitude of complexity on top of a seemingly random relationship between gods, magic, and regular people. It reads like Erikson was just making shit up as he went along. I made it through the first four books and wasn't willing to go any further. The writing definitely had its moments, but there were too many rough edges for my liking.
That's exactly what I like about this, layers of mystery, a feeling of great antiquity. Often series start off giving you a sense of a whole world to explore and learn about, but by the end everything is *too* explained imo, trivializes things, you lose your sense of wonder about the world.
|
I've been meaning to start reading this series so many times now. Just can't find the books anywhere besides ordering online.
|
United States7481 Posts
On May 28 2011 17:14 Bagi wrote:
I've been meaning to start reading this series so many times now. Just can't find the books anywhere besides ordering online.
if you're ordering online i suggest the book depository, free shipping to a lot of the world. used them myself for dust of dreams with no complaints whatsoever
|
I'm almost done with Toll the Hounds, but I've been reading it slower and slower.
In general I like some of the quirks of Eriksson's writing, but I have tired of the way every single character and every single segment in every single chapter begins with a few pages or paragraphs of random philosophical ramblings. At some point I just need some action to happen, not to hear every single character's viewpoints on life/death, light/shadow/dark, good/evil, justice, or whatever other metaphysical item happens to be the topic of the day.
The annoying thing is I actually like the way he writes many of these segments, but when they come over and over I just get bored and want to skip it to get to the part where something happens. This seems to be more a problem with the later books, as he was quite a bit more judicious in his pacing in the earlier stories.
Overall I have to say I'm a fan. Some of the deus ex machina stuff can be a bit grating, but I like having an actual fantasy setting that's as dark as this one, as opposed to George RR Martin's more realistic world or some other more fantastical settings like Wheel of Time where things are more black and white.
There are lots of things to like in the Malazan world, but some issues too. If you love fantasy, though, you definitely need to give it a shot.
|
On May 26 2011 18:58 snotboogie wrote:
Personally, ASoIaF was my favourite book series ever - that is, until I read some Malazan!
This.
Also, they could never, ever make aTotMBotF into a TV series or films.
|
On May 28 2011 19:39 ThunderGod wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 18:58 snotboogie wrote:
Personally, ASoIaF was my favourite book series ever - that is, until I read some Malazan!
This. Also, they could never, ever make aTotMBotF into a TV series or films.
Yeah, if they are up against budget constraints for Game of Thrones, there's no way any movie or series will be produced for Malazan - way too much special effects needed. But I kinda like it this way, it stays as epic as possible in my mind.
|
On May 26 2011 18:58 snotboogie wrote:
My recommendation for new readers is always to start with the second book of the series, Deadhouse Gates, then go back to read the first book and then complete the rest in sequence. This is because the first book is extremely confusing to get into; also it was written far before the others and is easily the weakest of the books.
Fuck, had i only known that before :D
I started with the first book and i havent finished it yet because often i understand absolutely nothing of what is going on and it kinda has its lengths.
|
On May 28 2011 19:42 snotboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 19:39 ThunderGod wrote:On May 26 2011 18:58 snotboogie wrote:
Personally, ASoIaF was my favourite book series ever - that is, until I read some Malazan!
This. Also, they could never, ever make aTotMBotF into a TV series or films. Yeah, if they are up against budget constraints for Game of Thrones, there's no way any movie or series will be produced for Malazan - way too much special effects needed. But I kinda like it this way, it stays as epic as possible in my mind.
If they ever tried to make the Malazan books into TV series, no matter how much money they have, they will never be able to capture and accurately remake the full scope of emotions, epicness and all of the different characters philosophies.
|
On May 28 2011 16:43 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 16:29 Antoine wrote:On May 28 2011 15:52 SergioCQH wrote:
The world building style of Erikson is very D&D. The Malazan universe is a mish-mash jumble of deities, cultures, and places that do not combine in a very coherent or sensical manner. One does not get the feeling that the world arose organically, but that it was created during sessions of tabletop roleplaying by a bunch of D&D geeks, which indeed it was. Erikson took many elements of the Malazan world from his P&P RPG experiences. The resulting artificiality of the world dispels the suspension of disbelief crucial in enjoying fantasy. This is not helped by the enormous time spans, distances, and number of worlds that stretch credibility.
It's a fantasy series I would have enjoyed back in high school and before I discovered GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire, but I can't now. I am the opposite. Read SoIaF first, then read malazan, and now i can't stand the forced "maturity" that grrm puts into his books when I try to reread. it panders to the lowest common denominator of readers and his plot is just not that riveting once you get over it. SoIaF feels much more high school-y to me. I am the opposite. Read ASoIaF first, then read Malazan and couldn't stand how it reminded me of the geeks in my high school poring over their D&D Monster Manuals. I can't stand the random uber-powerful deities, demi-gods, and indestructible heroes that Erikson crams into his books. It panders to the lowest common denominator of fantasy readers who want huge battles, fiery magical spells, and glowy swords and his plot is just plain non-sensical once you're finally bored enough to read it. Malazan feels exactly like high school to me. See how that reads? Why don't you try making reasoned statements instead of making veiled potshots at other people?
For me it was about the characters and the themes; and the writing style in which they were delivered. They made me think and they made me question my world views.
The various plot-lines were there incidentally; as a requirement to progress the story (although some of those plot-lines were very interesting also.)
|
I definitely agree with some of the peoples sentiments here with regards to the first book being very hard to read, but there was a moment in the first few pages where I saw a spark, a glimmer, that shone and told me that this series was worth it. Son, I was not disappoint.
|
Quon Tali, Seven Cities and Genebackis all felt part of the same complete Universe.
I love reading about Darujhistan and the blue flames that illuminate it at night, about Anomander Rake, about the history of his sword, and all the blilion bits of Lore that come with it, Envy, Spite, etc etc etc.
At Midnight Tides when your thrown into Lether, I couldn't help but be a little bit put off. So Erikson's telling me there's a whole other big-ass Empire out there and they've never crossed paths with the Malazan ever? (Obviously I find out later that Lether's basically in a sort of stasis but still it was an annoying feeling, especially when realistically someone can basically jsut walk into the continent. Was that a spoiler?)
And don't get me started on Ganoes Paran going round, thinking with Portals, killing Gods with his Portal Gun through the use of little clauses. Deus Ex Machina to the max, that point in the series.
|
I understand most people on this thread are biased, but Erikson is half the writer of Martin. the series aren't even close in terms of quality. Erikson's story feels rushed and made up on the spot, while Martin's story is smooth and seamless. I enjoyed both series, but I feel as if this thread is unjustly overhyping Erikson leading a lot of new readers to be dissapointed.
Erikson is like your drunk friend who tells a story then makes up details to answer your questions about the story. Erikson would be like the writer for Bleach making up powerups for Ichigo whenever he realized he wrote himself into a corner. Martin is the writer of One Piece which has a great storyline that is consistent from beginning to end and makes everything have a purpose.
|
On May 28 2011 21:12 PrideNeverDie wrote:
I understand most people on this thread are biased, but Erikson is half the writer of Martin. the series aren't even close in terms of quality. Erikson's story feels rushed and made up on the spot, while Martin's story is smooth and seamless. I enjoyed both series, but I feel as if this thread is unjustly overhyping Erikson leading a lot of new readers to be dissapointed.
Erikson is like your drunk friend who tells a story then makes up details to answer your questions about the story. Erikson would be like the writer for Bleach making up powerups for Ichigo whenever he realized he wrote himself into a corner. Martin is the writer of One Piece which has a great storyline that is consistent from beginning to end and makes everything have a purpose.
One Piece to Bleach is the perfect comparison.
Another thing with Martin is that his plots are character driven, it's carried forward by the relationships between the characters, the interaction between characters, rarely is it a Boss fight, or a Deus Ex Machina. Jamie losing his hand might be an example of this. In Erikson it always comes down to... Anomander vs XXX, Apsalar shadowdancing a 1000 enemies, some Jaghut casting Frost Nova across a continent, some random mage in a Malazan army who's actually a High Mage in disguise along with incidentally 1000 other randoms in his company who happen to be all level 80 Warriors.
Don't get me wrong, Erikson has his strengths. His background in Archaeology make his world's history at the very least, some of the most strongest and compelling in the field. But Martin matches him up with that I'd say. Even though that is, they are very different styles of Fantasy. And probably the only two I will own the complete set to. (No! Scratch that, I won't buy Esselmont if you threatened me with rape by gorilla)
|
Do we have to have a Martin vs Erikson argument in this thread? I think derailing this thread is something that none of use need to be involved in. This thread is about Steven Erikson and his works, not who is better in the fantasy world.
|
On May 28 2011 21:55 HuskyMUDKIPZ wrote:
Do we have to have a Martin vs Erikson argument in this thread? I think derailing this thread is something that none of use need to be involved in. This thread is about Steven Erikson and his works, not who is better in the fantasy world.
rereading my original post it does seem like i'm turning this into a Martin vs. Erikson argument and that Martin is way superior. however that is not true at all, I do enjoy the epic boss fight style of Erikson. the only reason I brought it up is because the OP of this thread is trying to attract the new fantasy readers who got into the genre because of Martin to read Erikson. I just wanted to bring up valid differences about their writing style so the new readers have a better expectation of the series.
The reason Martin appeals to so many new fantasy readers is due to the fact that he is very character driven and his world is very structured and realistic. Fans of this style of writing might not enjoy Erikson's style. Erikson is like a flashy summer blockbuster directed by Michael Bay and Martin is an epic saga like Star Wars IV, V, and VI. if you are easily amused by lights and special effects, then you will enjoy Erikson. if you enjoy a great storyline and ask a lot of questions about plots, then Erikson will make you dissapointed.
|
Wow i just fucking got this book yesterday and now TL makes a thread on it??? Sometimes I feel the world works fucking for me lol
|
On May 28 2011 21:12 PrideNeverDie wrote:
I understand most people on this thread are biased, but Erikson is half the writer of Martin. the series aren't even close in terms of quality. Erikson's story feels rushed and made up on the spot, while Martin's story is smooth and seamless. I enjoyed both series, but I feel as if this thread is unjustly overhyping Erikson leading a lot of new readers to be dissapointed.
Erikson is like your drunk friend who tells a story then makes up details to answer your questions about the story. Erikson would be like the writer for Bleach making up powerups for Ichigo whenever he realized he wrote himself into a corner. Martin is the writer of One Piece which has a great storyline that is consistent from beginning to end and makes everything have a purpose.
"unjustly overhyping Erikson"
They are books. Minimal to no investment is required, if they don't like it they can stop reading it. You can read more than one series in your lifetime you know. You can even like more than one.
Erikson certainly doesn't make it up on the spot when he has literally millions of years of history for his world. It is absurdly large and well thought out.
If you can't appreciate what Erikson does I think it's just straight up over your head. No offence but the plot is so ridiculously intertwined it borders on mad genius half the time. There's just no understanding people who aren't constantly amazed at what Erikson can do from a world building perspective and his ability to juggle plot threads.
I don't know how you can say Martin's story is smooth and seamless when 7 years go by between books because he has completely lost the plot himself. There's weak parts about both series, neither of them are the greatest writers in the world, and you should be reading every recent author who is doing interesting things with the genre like Abercromie, Bakker, Gaimen, Erikson, Martin, etc. Not trying to dissuade people from reading something because you didn't get it.
Not trying to say you're stupid or anything because the Malazan series went over your head, Erikson doesn't try at all to help people understand the series, it requires a pretty significant investment from the reader. But there's like 18 threads about Ice and Fire, what makes you think you need to shit all over this one?
|
On May 28 2011 22:11 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 21:55 HuskyMUDKIPZ wrote:
Do we have to have a Martin vs Erikson argument in this thread? I think derailing this thread is something that none of use need to be involved in. This thread is about Steven Erikson and his works, not who is better in the fantasy world. rereading my original post it does seem like i'm turning this into a Martin vs. Erikson argument and that Martin is way superior. however that is not true at all, I do enjoy the epic boss fight style of Erikson. the only reason I brought it up is because the OP of this thread is trying to attract the new fantasy readers who got into the genre because of Martin to read Erikson. I just wanted to bring up valid differences about their writing style so the new readers have a better expectation of the series. The reason Martin appeals to so many new fantasy readers is due to the fact that he is very character driven and his world is very structured and realistic. Fans of this style of writing might not enjoy Erikson's style. Erikson is like a flashy summer blockbuster directed by Michael Bay and Martin is an epic saga like Star Wars IV, V, and VI. if you are easily amused by lights and special effects, then you will enjoy Erikson. if you enjoy a great storyline and ask a lot of questions about plots, then Erikson will make you dissapointed.
And yet again you shit on Erikson, this is not the thread for that. This thread is introducing people to a series that they may not have read before.
Also, applying a blanket statement like "if you enjoy a great storyline and ask a lot of questions about plots, then Erikson will make you dissapointed" makes me think that either a) you didn't read the series past book one, or b) you didn't understand the series.
|
Books 1,2,3,5 are awesome, reapers gale and bonehunters quite okay with bonehunters beeing better. Toll the Hounds sucks balls.
My fav char. are Quick Ben and Kruppe, also like the Trygalle trade gilde or however it is called.
I like the different ways how magic works in Erikson's world.
|
I read the first two books and I didn't really like them; it's kinda hard to describe why. There are a lot of characters, but so does ASOIF.
I think it boils down to the world building; Erikson doesn't really explain anything. I don't think Warrens were explained at all, you have to piece things together which amounts almost to nothing. He basically just throws all the different races in there and it's just confusing.
He not very good at making you feel engaged in the events that are happening. In the second book there's a big war and lots of people dying, but I just didn't care at all. + Show Spoiler +Man I hated the ending. The assassin spent the entire book trying to kill the queen, and decides not to when she said don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
