Kevin's Watch

Are we talking about Wheel of Time or Malazan

Regarding Malazan, I'm with you Hue, it can be a struggle. GoTM was ok for me because I was warned about the scope of it. Deadhouse Gates was fine because it was such an engaging story. But Memories of Ice had me struggling for a while. I just lost track of the characters and found it hard to care for them as much as, say, SRD characters. Fortunately for me, MoI became very interesting, and finally I did care for the characters (some of them anyway). House of Chains was a breeze, and now I'm struggling through Midnight Tides - with the knowledge that I've been quite satisfied with the others.

I was referring to Erikson in my previous post, however, the argument

could be applied to WOT as well. What ever has happened to the

self-contained single fantasy novel?


The main reason you have these bloated series dominating the fantasy

section of bookshops must be monetary, plain and simple.

Another issue I have with Erikson is that these characters could be

anyone.

For example, I take it that Sorry is the fisherman's daughter that was

talking to the seer.



That is ok if you were writing for a visual medium ie film or television,

but it is a very lazy way of writing, what ever way you look at it.

I don't understand. Lazy in what way?

Darujhistan wrote:I really have no idea why people KNOWING they are beginning a 10 book epic (Malazan) give up during GOTM. My take is it's simply too complicated for them because everything isn't spoon-fed to them (Erikson's term) like most Fantasy.

GOTM is a short novel by today's fantasy standards, I have no idea why people can't finish it, it's not that difficult. Ok, so It's a new World, it's complex, but really - it's not War and Peace.

I don't remember a single person saying that this book is too complicated or difficult to fathom. The problem is that it sucks.

I don't need to be spoon-fed. But I do require a strong character-driven story that is more than simply world-building and mental masturbation of some Dungeons and Dragons fanboy. Have you noticed that when people talk about this series, they go on and on about how detailed the world is and how wonderful the magic system is or how many characters it has or even how many pages it has, but they never say one word about the story? Or how they never mention one character? That's a big clue for you why some of us can't get into this series. There, now you have an idea . . . perhaps several.

But my hesitancy has nothing to do with complexity. Dear lord, what a goofy charge to make in a Donaldson forum. I think most of us here can handle intelligent prose.

[All this said with my usual Malazan disclaimer: I do eventually intend to read past the first book. ]

The detail and world building are impressive, but that's not what makes the books great. Considering how much those predominate the first couple of books and the fact that they're the least successful, you could almost argue the opposite.

The intricacy and scope of the Malazan books are actually needed to provide a framework for the themes Erikson is working with (as opposed to Jordan who had an interesting story but didn't need 12 books to tell it). By and large, the 'bad guys' are entirely justified not only in their own minds, but in their own moral framework which exists separately from their minds, the 'good guys' are often as flawed and detestable as Covenant, and most of the time it's hard (and probably pointless) to decide who is which. Combined with the fact that Erikson isn't satisfied with presenting two points of view but rather wants to contrast several of them with all their associated cultural structures (which do not exist as individual, archetypal representations but actually have play between each other which spans entire cultural evolutions), and the total page count isn't surprising, nor is the plodding pace of the first few books, considering how hard it would be to get momentum going on such a huge vehicle. But once that locomotive is up to speed...

This is the problem I'm having with Esselmont's latest entry, Return of the Crimson Guard. It's not that it's bad (though there are a few places where I've found the writing kind of amateurish). He definitely proves his chops as the world's co-creator. He just falls short of delivering the soul, the thematic punch, that the series has by this point of the chronology. I've been reading it for over a couple months and haven't quite finished it yet, but it's kind of read like a long list of disappointments, few characters living up to their potential. Not that even that wouldn't be a viable theme, but that it ends up being an equal impression.

But to return to Erikson, I think the term world building is actually inadequate. It implies a kind of VR programming, basically environment setting and character blocking. Like The Land, Erikson's makes the world breathing. It's not fantasy melodrama, or even epic fantasy. I'd call it fantastic realism, and so I'd call the work 'reality building.'

Zarathustra wrote:Have you noticed that when people talk about this series, they go on and on about how detailed the world is and how wonderful the magic system is or how many characters it has or even how many pages it has, but they never say one word about the story? Or how they never mention one character? That's a big clue for you why some of us can't get into this series. There, now you have an idea . . . perhaps several.

You've obviously been listening to the wrong Erikson fans, so wall of text incoming as I do the opposite:

Icarium, introduced in Deadhouse Gates, is one of Erikson's strongest characters and he and his companion Mappo Trell have a running storyline throughout the series from that point forward that is very compelling, particularly in the latest book. You'll rarely find an Erikson fan that doesn't mention Icarium specifically when raving about the series.

Erikson is particularly good at companion stories, with Icarium and Mappo, Trull Sengar and Onrack the Broken, and Toc the Younger and Tool all being some of his most beloved characters.

The main overarching conflict of the series is not really introduced until the third book, so maybe Gardens of the Moon seems like it lacks such, but it influences every part of the stories after that in a very large way.

Gardens was written ten years before the next book in the series, and there is a big leap in skill - Deadhouse Gates is very compelling, with the main story thread being that of the Chain of Dogs, an army escorting a large number of Malazan refugees through territory in the midst of rebellion against the Empire. The climax of the storyline is one of the more tragic and poignant events I've read.

In House of Chains, the fourth book of the series, Erikson spends the entire firstquarter of the book with Karsa Orlong, developing him and following his story from when he leaves his home town to the point when he arrives in the action of the other storylines, and it's one of my favourite parts of the series. Karsa is one of those characters that can seem like an unstoppable overpowered hero type, but he's more interesting than that, and it works.

The epic scale, the history behind the world, all of that? It's a selling point, and it's noteworthy, but it's not why you read the series.

As for the magic system... who the hell ever said it was all that? It's really about as wishy-washy and "it just works" as you can get without just seeming stupid. He explains just enough for it to work in the context of the story.

To continue with some of what Murrin said...

The Chain of Dogs is as tragic and poignant as it gets. Coltaine and Duiker, in particular, are beyond noble, and they are beloved, by both the readers and other characters. Very few things I've read move me as much.

The story of Toc the Younger and moi begins in Gardens, and doesn't end any time soon.



Bringing up new characters...

Whiskeyjack. Nuff said.

Quick Ben and Kalam is another great companion story. But they are also tops in their respective fields. And they're part of the legendary Bridgeburners. An elite force that accomplishes incredible things. A group that also tends to get on each others' nerves. A lot. Some of them can't stand each other.

Fiddler. Another Bridgeburner. Among the most extraordinary humans in the series, and among my personal favorite characters in any stories. His skills with the tools of his trade; his understanding of warfare/strategy; his insights into humanity, being a soldier...

Tavore. Really, I can't stand her. But I understand some of why she's the way she is. And she's certainly a tragic character. Damn...

Kruppe. Well... Yeah, Kruppe.


Enough for now. heh

Hrm... I'll join in on this in a day or so when I finish off Deadhouse Gates.

Great posts, Syl and Murrin in particular. Onos too.

--A

Back to Wheel of Time, I remember liking most of them. First five, in my opinion, were excellent. "Lord of Chaos" kinda sucked, but the ending was good and important. Books 7-9 kinda have a different focus then the previous ones, focusing more on court intrigue then splitting Trollacs' heads like watermelons. I imagine these are what Martin's books are like, though I'm basing this on what I've heard. Several years ago, Crossroads of Twilight was like being shot from a cannon into a brick wall. As a result, I own the other two but haven't read them. The prequel, New Spring, sucks more ass then a Kansas City...well, you get the point. In my mind, New Spring was never written.

I'm starting a re-read right now, seeing how I happen to now like Tolstoy and figure I should enjoy the Wheel of Time more this time around, now that I am more sophisticated

I quite liked New Spring, but then I'm a sucker for prequels.

Book 11 was very good. Even a bit too fast. And I was pleasantly surprised by bk 12.

Book 10 never happened.

--A

Zarathustra wrote:

Darujhistan wrote:I really have no idea why people KNOWING they are beginning a 10 book epic (Malazan) give up during GOTM. My take is it's simply too complicated for them because everything isn't spoon-fed to them (Erikson's term) like most Fantasy.

GOTM is a short novel by today's fantasy standards, I have no idea why people can't finish it, it's not that difficult. Ok, so It's a new World, it's complex, but really - it's not War and Peace.

I don't remember a single person saying that this book is too complicated or difficult to fathom. The problem is that it sucks.

I don't need to be spoon-fed. But I do require a strong character-driven story that is more than simply world-building and mental masturbation of some Dungeons and Dragons fanboy. Have you noticed that when people talk about this series, they go on and on about how detailed the world is and how wonderful the magic system is or how many characters it has or even how many pages it has, but they never say one word about the story? Or how they never mention one character? That's a big clue for you why some of us can't get into this series. There, now you have an idea . . . perhaps several.

But my hesitancy has nothing to do with complexity. Dear lord, what a goofy charge to make in a Donaldson forum. I think most of us here can handle intelligent prose.

[All this said with my usual Malazan disclaimer: I do eventually intend to read past the first book. ]

It's not a great book, everyone is aware of that. But the point I was making was that it's a weak book at the beginning of a fantastic series. I have no idea what you are talking about when you imply that Erikson doesn't develop character or story...he's a master of both.

Is GOTM poor? - I think so, and it suffers from having to 'set-up' a 10 book series.

You're actually in a Gen/Sci-Fi discussion forum, therefore I or no-one should be working under the assumption that anyone has read Donaldson. So that's a flawed premise to begin with.

No, I haven't noticed anything you have noticed about what people say about Malazan either. What I have noticed is people quitting a great series because of a weak first book, which is silly when it's widely acknowledged that GOTM is not good.

'I can't get into it' is the main complaint, which to screams to me 'I'm not being spoonfed, help'

"Enough for now. heh"


Seren Pedac - Tragic

Bugg, Tehol - Comic


All well developed.

Darujhistan wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:

Darujhistan wrote:I really have no idea why people KNOWING they are beginning a 10 book epic (Malazan) give up during GOTM. My take is it's simply too complicated for them because everything isn't spoon-fed to them (Erikson's term) like most Fantasy.

GOTM is a short novel by today's fantasy standards, I have no idea why people can't finish it, it's not that difficult. Ok, so It's a new World, it's complex, but really - it's not War and Peace.

I don't remember a single person saying that this book is too complicated or difficult to fathom. The problem is that it sucks.

I don't need to be spoon-fed. But I do require a strong character-driven story that is more than simply world-building and mental masturbation of some Dungeons and Dragons fanboy. Have you noticed that when people talk about this series, they go on and on about how detailed the world is and how wonderful the magic system is or how many characters it has or even how many pages it has, but they never say one word about the story? Or how they never mention one character? That's a big clue for you why some of us can't get into this series. There, now you have an idea . . . perhaps several.

But my hesitancy has nothing to do with complexity. Dear lord, what a goofy charge to make in a Donaldson forum. I think most of us here can handle intelligent prose.

[All this said with my usual Malazan disclaimer: I do eventually intend to read past the first book. ]

It's not a great book, everyone is aware of that. But the point I was making was that it's a weak book at the beginning of a fantastic series. I have no idea what you are talking about when you imply that Erikson doesn't develop character or story...he's a master of both.

Is GOTM poor? - I think so, and it suffers from having to 'set-up' a 10 book series.

You're actually in a Gen/Sci-Fi discussion forum, therefore I or no-one should be working under the assumption that anyone has read Donaldson. So that's a flawed premise to begin with.

No, I haven't noticed anything you have noticed about what people say about Malazan either. What I have noticed is people quitting a great series because of a weak first book, which is silly when it's widely acknowledged that GOTM is not good.

'I can't get into it' is the main complaint, which to screams to me 'I'm not being spoonfed, help'

Hrm...I better get around to reading this, then. I like me a series with good set-up! Set-up seems to be a concept lost on many of my friends that claim to read, they just don't understand that for a story to be really great, it requires a good set-up. The greater the scope of the story, the greater the set-up needs to be.

Darujhistan wrote:You're actually in a Gen/Sci-Fi discussion forum, therefore I or no-one should be working under the assumption that anyone has read Donaldson. So that's a flawed premise to begin with.

Uh, although it's a gen sci-fi/fantasy forum, it's on a Donaldson board. Donaldson is the reason the forum exists, so it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

--A

I got to about book seven, and was so frustrated with the intrigues within intrigues, and felling lost, and characters showing up who I could not quite remember their context and the 12 year old women all over the place (why can't so many fantasy authors write about adult relationships ??)

Energy to finish reading the series ? about zero

Wow, long time no see Cord. Welcome back.

--A

Cord wrote: and the 12 year old women all over the place (why can't so many fantasy authors write about adult relationships ??)

I suppose it's at least consistent, though, cuz most of the men are about 13.

Gee, thanks

Often here, reading, but not posting - I've hit 50 posts tho !!! (haha plonk)

Avatar wrote:Wow, long time no see Cord. Welcome back.

--A

Cord wrote:...I've hit 50 posts tho !!! (haha plonk)

Sarge can do that in an hour.