Gardens of the Moon [Spoilers]

[Zarathustra]

Nerdanel, kind of puts any disappointment in Runes in perspective, doesn't it? Even at Donaldson's "worst," he's still orders of magnitude better than most crap that gets published.

For me, it was Gardens of the Moon. [Caution Lucimay: here follows Erikson bashing . . . do not read!]

Spoiler

I don't understand why Donaldson praises Erikson so highly. For an author who views characters as the primary focus of his fiction, I don't understand how he can praise a book full of dozens of characters who are unable to elicit any emotion whatsoever, who seem to wander aimlessly about, appearing wherever the plot needed them (rather than the plot following their needs). For an author who writes a book because of the ending, I don't understand how Donaldson can praise a book with an ending so contrived and disconnected from the entire bulk of this 600 page novel. I mean, in the last 100 pages, Erikson started throwing dragons, demons, gods, sorcerers around like cheap fireworks at a backyard 4th of July celebration. It was pathetic in its attempt to "wow" us with a spectacle, rather than any character resolution. And the ONLY character resolution he gave us was for a man who spent most of the 100s of pages drunk, speechless, or offstage. When he was restored to his "former status" as a ruling elite, all I could think was: who the fuck cares? That's the climactic character resolution? Why the hell should I care about this guy?

[I'm Murrin]

(Donaldson's praise--specifically the blurb he gave--was for Deadhouse Gates, the second book, written almost ten years later by an Erikson with much improved writing skills.)

[Zarathustra]

Ok, maybe I'll check it out. I didn't realize 10 years had passed. Damn you Murrin, you're making a habit out of illustrating my mistakes with one-liners, today!

[I'm Murrin]

Gardens of the Moon was published eight years after it was written, and Deadhouse Gates only shortly after that, so people don't often realise the big gap between them.

[Farm Ur-Ted]

Gardens of the Moon was published eight years after it was written, and Deadhouse Gates only shortly after that, so people don't often realise the big gap between them.

Wow, I'm glad to read this. I've been reading GoTM (about 2/3's through it), and sort of have the same reaction to it as malik. I like it, but I don't love it. It's good to hear that he became a better writer, and that book 2 is a step up. The first 50-100 pages of this book was probably the hardest thing I've ever slogged through (not counting stuff like ulysses...blech!). I've never had to re-read chapters over and over again to figure out what was going on like I did at the beginning of this thing. Erikson's a bit parsimonious with his descriptions of things. He could've made it a lot easier on the reader. It took me forever to get a grip on what the heck the Moon's Spawn was. How about a couple of sentences for goobers like me along the lines of : "It's this big castle-thingy that floats around in the sky from place to place, and its occupants like to open up a can of whup-ass on people below."

[wayfriend]

How about a couple of sentences for goobers like me along the lines of : "It's this big castle-thingy that floats around in the sky from place to place, and its occupants like to open up a can of whup-ass on people below."

Uh ... it's not a castle, is it? I thought it was more of a giant boulder.

Well, there ya go.

[Farm Ur-Ted]

Uh ... it's not a castle, is it? I thought it was more of a giant boulder.

Well, there ya go.

Giant boulder? Maybe that is what it is. When it was first introduced, I just thought it was a fortress sitting on top of a mountain called the Moon that was outside of Pale (hence the name Moon's Spawn). Then it was mentioned later on that it had stopped spinning. Stopped? When the heck did it start spinning? I kept trying to figure out how a mountain could spin, then I thought that maybe the castle was like one of those goofy spinning restaurants that they used to build on top of high-rises in the 50's. Anyway, it kind of drives me nuts that Erikson leaves out a lot of info for the reader that is common knowledge to all of the characters. This isn't like TC wandering around the Land for the first time and figuring things out along with the reader. That I can understand. But when Tattersail first starts to mess around with her Tarot cards, it would've been nice if he explained what the heck was going on a little better. What do the cards look like? Who made them? Where did she get them? How did she learn to use them? I could go on and on with the questions. I just find it frustrating that she casually whips them out and starts using them, and I'm left in the dark. I feel like I'm reading the 8th book in a series of 10, and not the first one. But I still like it.

[CovenantJr]

Then it was mentioned later on that it had stopped spinning. Stopped? When the heck did it start spinning?

I find that kind of thing happening quite frequently in books. I love those moments when something significantly stops happening that I had no idea was meant to be happening in the first place. The author evidently has a clear mental image, but doesn't describe it fully.

[Zarathustra]

I thought it was a floating mountain with a castle on it.

Maybe the description was never that concrete. I don't think any significant events actually happen on it. It's not really the setting for any scene, just more a background spectacle.

[Farm Ur-Ted]

Maybe the description was never that concrete. I don't think any significant events actually happen on it. It's not really the setting for any scene, just more a background spectacle.

That's true, it doesn't really matter that much after a while. But when it first comes up, it leads to all sorts of confusion, and just makes the book hard to follow (well, for me).

The other thing that I don't like is that he (Erikson) doesn't really establish any rules on how things work in his world. I think when you first start reading a new fantasy series (or sci-fi), you need to get oriented as a reader to the world that the author has created. Part of the orientation is just getting a feel for what the place looks like, but also what kind of creatures and beings exist, and what their specific attributes and powers are. I don't expect to know everything right off the bat (obviously), but just tip me off on how things work in your fantasy world. In GotM, we find out that there are gods. I've got to say, I actually find that kind of weird. I haven't read that many fantasies that have real gods in them. There are lots of gods in ASOIAF, but other than being worshipped, they don't do much (well, yet). Anyway, I'm ~500 pages in to GotM, and it's still not that clear what the heck the gods do. No one seems to worship them. They do seem to like to screw with people. But I'd like to know what the basic ground-rules are with the gods. (I'd also like to know what the heck an ascendent is.) The main reason that I like to have some general rules set is that it keeps the author from pulling out a wild-card that miraculously saves his hero when he's up the creek. I just finished the passage when Paran is trapped in the sword-warren of Anomander Rake, and he gets out of the mess by conjuring up one of the Opann twins. He can do that? Well, I guess so.

[I'm Murrin]

IIRC, Moon's Spawn was described in its very first appearence as reeling and drifting off to the south (in the first bit with Tattersail, before the flashback to the battle), and there's things like it being visible at the horizon, or hanging above Pale--as the timeline jumps around in the chapters around the siege, you clearly see Moon's Spawn moving locations. There is certainly enough to infer that it floats.

[Zarathustra]

In GotM, we find out that there are gods. I've got to say, I actually find that kind of weird. I haven't read that many fantasies that have real gods in them. There are lots of gods in ASOIAF, but other than being worshipped, they don't do much (well, yet). Anyway, I'm ~500 pages in to GotM, and it's still not that clear what the heck the gods do. No one seems to worship them. They do seem to like to screw with people. But I'd like to know what the basic ground-rules are with the gods. (I'd also like to know what the heck an ascendent is.) The main reason that I like to have some general rules set is that it keeps the author from pulling out a wild-card that miraculously saves his hero when he's up the creek. I just finished the passage when Paran is trapped in the sword-barren of Anomander Rake, and he gets out of the mess by conjuring up one of the Opann twins. He can do that? Well, I guess so.

Fred Saberhagen's Book of Swords series--which were fairly good for about 6 books, IRC--had gods as actual participants. And when you connect that series with his stuff that went before, you learn that the creation of gods actually has an explanation. They are active characters, and become much more drawn into the story than they intended! I'm sure there are lots of other series. Tolkien, of course.

I don't mind gods being in the GOTM. What I mind is exactly what you pointed out: they seem to be brought in all willy-nilly. Paran's story, specifically the part you're at now, came out of nowhere.

Oh, and speaking of coming out of (and going into) nowhere, Crokus' possession of the Coin has no payoff, no impact, and no significance. For something that everyone thinks is so important, I'm left wondering why.

But we're getting a little off topic here. It's all Nerdanel's fault!

[I'm Murrin]

Oponn's use of Crokus in GotM is a set up that still hasn't been used, five books later. You're right on that one -- the coin doesn't serve much purpose in the book.

As for being off topic, you're welcome to bring the discussion down to the Steven Erikson forum.

[dlbpharmd]

Let me know if you guys want me to split this into a new thread in SE forum.

[Farm Ur-Ted]

Let me know if you guys want me to split this into a new thread in SE forum.

That would be cool if you could move it to the other forum; it's been a fun discussion.
Thanks!

[dlbpharmd]

There ya go!

[Farm Ur-Ted]

So, does anyone else picture Hairlock looking something like this?

[lucimay]

So, does anyone else picture Hairlock looking something like this?

YES!!!!! exactly what i thought of!! chucky!!!



malik...Paran's story doesn't come out of nowhere! his story begins with the prologue of GoTM!!!

and i promise you'll get all the emotion you want if you'll read Deadhouse Gates.

and you know, don't you, the way to get me TO read something is to tell me NOT to!

Oh, and speaking of coming out of (and going into) nowhere, Crokus' possession of the Coin has no payoff, no impact, and no significance. For something that everyone thinks is so important, I'm left wondering why.

here's what i think about the coin. its a signifier. a device to introduce Oponn and connect Crokus with Oponn. does it need a "higher" purpose than that?


and furthermore...

these books (tho GoTM may not be the best one) are TALES from The Malazan Book of the Fallen.
though its a continuous story, they are all separate tales. if you've only read GoTM, all you've got so far is exposition. it's too bad it wasn't interesting enough to get you to read the next one but, i swear the payoff in Deadhouse Gates is soooooo worth it. and i KNOW DG will make you want to read the next one.
come on Malik. give it a real chance. don't you trust Donaldson just a little bit?

[Spiral Jacobs]

My mental image of Hairlock was this:

[Zarathustra]

Luci, Murrin's comments convinced me to give it another go. 10 years is a lot of time for one's craft to develop. Given the fact that so many people I respect seem to enjoy it, it's the least I can do.

And just for the record, I wasn't trying to stir up the pot of Erikson dissatisfaction. This discussion evolved out of another one (hence the thread splitting).