Steven Erikson Malazan series

Amhran Nua

I came across one of his books there a while back, read through it and thought it was fairly decent, about number six or seven, so I went and bought the rest for a bit of light reading in the very little time I have to read these days.

Little did I know that it had taken him six or seven bumper sized novels to reach the level of "fairly decent" and even that was a fluke. Where to begin. Plot - deus ex machina is the rule for these efforts, if your characters are in a tight spot, make a magical wagon appear and bail them out. Or maybe a god shows up and wiggles a pinky to extricate the hapless heroes. Not that that will help them, he randomly kills off major characters as it suits him, which saves on character development I guess. Lazy as sin writing, not a tap of thought gone into most of it.

And while we're on the subject of his writing skills, introducing a new character every other page isn't a good indication of those, particularily when the few the reader might get attached to inevitably end up dead (not really that much of an inconvenience since he just regenerates the same sort of character in the next novel under a different name); also for the fun of it count the number of times you can see "..." in any given chapter in character conversations. Is this meant to lend weight to a sentence? If you put it in every other sentence Steven, it doesn't lend weight so much as drag the whole thing down, the William Shatner school of discourse. And the poetry! The labouring, wheezing, malformed poetry!

Internal consistency - while you're trying to keep track of the morass of new characters he introduces, he adds a penchant for randomly stringing letters together and calling them names. Ever notice how you can roughly tell someone's country of origin from their name? Yong Chow is probably Chinese, Jaques DeCourcy is probably French, Gunter Helmsson is probably German or Nordic anyway. Well no such luck with this beaut, which exacerbates his habit of making hundreds of new characters and switching between plot threads without rhyme or reason every few pages.

Now thats not to say there aren't occasional rare flashes of brilliance, in terms of some of the concepts and ideas he has, I'm just saying he should have paid a writer to express them. I doublechecked the publishing dates, and he's been rolling out one of these thousand page piles roughly every year and half, which should tell you plenty.

I sincerely regret wasting the money on these books now. Avoid.

Smellyirishman

Out of interest, which books have you read so far?

lemon_sherbert

I have the first of the series, and I continually pick it up and try to get into it, but I have yet to achieve getting more than 100 pages in. That said, I've heard a lot of people describe the series as their favourite, so there must be something to it!

Amhran Nua

Smellyirishman wrote: »

Out of interest, which books have you read so far?

I started out with Reaper's gale, then went back to the first one, Gardens of the moon and worked my way through about three or four of them, I don't think I'll read the rest. As I mentioned I bought the series all at once on the strength of the one I read; he does from time to time have strokes of genius as far as ideas go, but the shortcomings of the writing style, plot, character development and layout badly outweigh the positives in my opinion. Fantasy is light entertainment, or at least thats what I get out of it, but thats no reason to let basic standards fall by the wayside either. They could have been incredible in the hands of a competent writer.

PADRAGON

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I started out with Reaper's gale, then went back to the first one, Gardens of the moon and worked my way through about three or four of them, I don't think I'll read the rest. As I mentioned I bought the series all at once on the strength of the one I read; he does from time to time have strokes of genius as far as ideas go, but the shortcomings of the writing style, plot, character development and layout badly outweigh the positives in my opinion. Fantasy is light entertainment, or at least thats what I get out of it, but thats no reason to let basic standards fall by the wayside either. They could have been incredible in the hands of a competent writer.

I can understand your point of view,for one thing they are very hard to
follow in any kind of timeline.Also the way he skip's from one character to the next is dizzying.
Imo however there are some wonderful characters.
I wont spoil anything for the people who havent read them.
I'll just say Kruppe and Karsa alone are worth persevering
for.Not to mention Tehol the absurd.
I'll leave it at that,there are a lot of fans of the Malazan on boards
far more eloquent than me,
who i'm sure you'll be hearing from shortly.
Reap the whirlwind!

Amhran Nua

PADRAGON wrote: »

I'll just say Kruppe and Karsa alone are worth persevering for.

But sure he did them twice *cough*

the fat locquacious guy in book 2 or 3, and Mappo Trell, even the walking nuke(s) are fairly stereotypical

*cough* I mean having heroic characters struggle against the odds and win out by wit and skill is one thing, for example Mhoram in Donaldson's Covenant series, but when you have

this epic trail of tears/chain of dogs deal that is so inspiring that it apparently pushes the main leaders into godhood, except they were saved by the wanderly wagon instead, I have no idea how anyone could empathise with the chancers.

Sloppy stuff.

PADRAGON wrote: »

Reap the whirlwind!

As long as its bringing a refund.

PADRAGON

Amhran Nua wrote: »

But sure he did them twice *cough*

the fat locquacious guy in book 2 or 3, and Mappo Trell, even the walking nuke(s) are fairly stereotypical

*cough* I mean having heroic characters struggle against the odds and win out by wit and skill is one thing, for example Mhoram in Donaldson's Covenant series, but when you have

this epic trail of tears/chain of dogs deal that is so inspiring that it apparently pushes the main leaders into godhood, except they were saved by the wanderly wagon instead, I have no idea how anyone could empathise with the chancers.

Sloppy stuff.


As long as its bringing a refund.

Never thought of wanderly wagon quite that way before.

By comparing it with Covenant you've found the chink in
my armour.Cant imagine myself arguing against Mhoram.

Where are all the Malazaners gone?
Its all very quiet at the back...

Amhran Nua

Well I'm not out to annoy people, I feel genuinely hard done by in this situation, I thought it had taken him six books to build up the amount of threads and characters he had, not six chapters. To his credit he deals with

storylines stretching from the stone age to the medieval

better than almost anyone I've seen yet, and the oases of philosophical consideration can be somewhat entertaining. The balance is not favourable though, as the string of neighbours hanging off the doorbell to complain about the reverbrations from molars grinding can attest. It took Tolkien decades to produce one thousand page masterpiece, Erikson is trotting a similar size book out every year or so.

Thats my rant done anyway, time to go back to criticising politicians instead...

Tar.Aldarion

Best series I have ever read(closely followed by A Song of Ice and Fire), not only that, you are the only person i have ever heard express dislike for them so he must be doing something right.

Amhran Nua

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Best series I have ever read(closely followed by A Song of Ice and Fire), not only that, you are the only person i have ever heard express dislike for them so he must be doing something right.

Amazon has plenty of negative reviews, some of them echo pretty much what I said, from various books:

At this stage there appears to be a multitude of characters; in fact there are only a handful or so of archetypes. The comedy is music hall and the writing is getting lazier and more perfunctory as the series goes on.

...

Don`t get me wrong...I love epics..the more books in a series, the better. Unfortunately, after buying and reading 3 of Erikson`s, I feel quite confused. I`m constantly trying to keep up with the plot, the characters, the landscape, with everything.

...

Other minuses: annoying names, too much deus ex machina (literally!), military nonsense (recruitment of teenage girls, 100-mile fronts drawn in the wilderness), stereotypical characters (the long-suffering loyal soldier, several poseur assasins, angst-ridden young men, grim determined women, Oscar Wilde-wannabes).

...

Another major gripe of course is the claim that Erikson is a pioneer and an original, when he in fact himself will admit that he owes more than a huge debt to Glen Cook's Black Company Chronicles. Having read Cook's work subsequently I can tell you that some of the stuff in the Malazan Books is near-plagiarism. Cook, however, writes in a tight, efficient and engaging manner that makes his work infinitely more readable and rewarding than Erikson's... Sadly though, all this excellent world building is drowned out by the mundanity of the prose and the very deliberate incoherence of the plotting. There are those who will argue that my distaste for this book is proof that I do not possess the intelligence or stamina for a well-plotted epic like this. However, the work of Samuel Beckett is deeply infused with the unexplained and the incoherent, yet it remains funny, engaging and above all rewarding. Making your book 'hard to read' is not the mark of a good writer by any means.

Yes there are plenty of positive reviews as well, as I mentioned I'm not trying to annoy people, but there are legitimate problems with the standard of the books imho.

Tar.Aldarion

You will find them for everything, a lot of people hate LoTR, it's boring, long winded etc. I just meant by word of mouth, I've talked to a lot of people about these books and usually people go to great lengths to get others to read them, buying the first one for them etc. Only series that people do that for that I know.

A lot of that is 'it's hard to follow' or the names are 'annoying'...are they serious? Because there are more than a few characters? Anomander should have been John. There are good reasons one might not like these, these are not those imo. I find all the characters quite refreshing really, rather than a boring hero with a troubled past being the only one of consequence.

Sure you have your opinion, just really surprised to hear it, as all I have heard is praise for years! I can't really argue with somebody not liking the writing. (:


I am happy he kills of characters I like, I am soooo tired of knowing what is going to happen in books. I still enjoy them, but i'd prefer not to know how things turn out 3 seconds into a book. A Song of Ice and Fire was the first series that really killed a character I felt for, that you didn't think would die, I loved that.



Oh, if you don't want the books, how much do you want for them, I gave all mine away to people and I've been meaning to read em again.

Amhran Nua

Its not so much that there are more than a few characters, its that there are more than a few characters per chapter. The names grate because there is no linguistic thread linking them to their cultural/geographic milieu, they are etymologically random, which makes the number of characters even harder to follow - although its more a few archetypes as was mentioned. Also if major characters are killed in every single book, it sort of spoils the surprise.

Thats my two cents anyway, I've already passed them on to my cousin who like yourself is a fan of the series, otherwise I'd be quite happy to unburden the bookshelf.

Coriolanus

On name etymology, I find his practise on the whole more satisfactory than an author using lazy memes and tropes to serve as identifying tags for cultures, countrys of origin etc. Every fantasy series out there it seems has dour northerners who fight with axes and are great sailors with names like Olaf, languid aristocratic duellist types with names like Louis de Poitier and so on and so forth.
That to me is lazy writing.

On the Deus Ex Machina and killing of major characters, surely they operate in opposition to each other? Generally I've been surprised by who he's killed and who he hasn't. Specifically I've felt that the use of D E M has set up some characters for deaths that wouldn't have resonated otherwise.

Coltaine in particular really surprised me.

I could understand if one or the other seemed to dominate, but really they seem balanced to me.

Amhran Nua

Nevore wrote: »

On name etymology, I find his practise on the whole more satisfactory than an author using lazy memes and tropes to serve as identifying tags for cultures, countrys of origin etc. Every fantasy series out there it seems has dour northerners who fight with axes and are great sailors with names like Olaf, languid aristocratic duellist types with names like Louis de Poitier and so on and so forth.

Funnily enough you've just nailed two of his archetypes. Characterising all books in the genre as D&D knockoffs is to do a great injustice to some genuinely original and fascinating series, of which there are many. Also on that note, Erikson based many of his ideas on a role playing game he was running.

Nevore wrote: »

On the Deus Ex Machina and killing of major characters, surely they operate in opposition to each other? Generally I've been surprised by who he's killed and who he hasn't. Specifically I've felt that the use of D E M has set up some characters for deaths that wouldn't have resonated otherwise.

Coltaine in particular really surprised me.

I could understand if one or the other seemed to dominate, but really they seem balanced to me.

Nothing is unforgivable in a story except deus ex machina in my opinion. You've gotten the characters into a tight fix, the reader is left wondering how they will extricate themselves from the mess, tension builds, and wham, no problem the gods fixed it.

The chain of dogs thread was a particularly egregious example of that.

If he wanted to set them up to knock them down he'd come up with innovative and intelligent ways for them to pull themselves out of the mess, but instead its just waving of the magic wand. That he hasn't done that either means laziness on his part or a lack of capability.

Edit: and as I've me second wind, he's borrowed massively from the likes of Moorcock as well -

an albino swordsman-prince that has a soul drinking sword (Elric!), the wagon train/city rolling round the plains in circles, exactly the same as the world of chaos in one of Moorcocks' books, I forget which.

ixoy

Well I'm very happy with them so far. On a couple of your points:

Characters - I'll give you the fact that in certain situations there's too many characters. Primarily this applies to the Malazan soldiers themselves and the various units where it can become difficult to distinguish them.
I do think though that there's more than enough unique and interesting ones in the series. I don't believe the fact some are re-incarnated in some form is a shortcut because it's generally fuelled by a plot (i.e. there's a reason for it and it can be fun trying to tease it out).
The etymology angle doesn't bother me. Too often in books the names are tied down to directly to the culture - like Nevore says it can be even lazier to do it like this.

Plot - Erikson has claimed, from the start, that he's got a grand plan. I believe him and the rate of delivery indicates that he knows where's he going. I don't think he's using "deus-ex machina" very often at all. There's not many cases where a whole situation is altered via a magic wand - the one you cited doesn't really apply (IMO).

Prose - I do agree Erikson could do with an editor. Bad poetry is with far too many fantasy novels so I'll forgive him that, but he needs someone to cut down on some of the more rambling descriptions and conversations. I recall it being said that he only does one editorial pass himself on his work - it somewhat shows. Other fantasy authors seem to hover over every single word and can go too far in the opposite direction (George R.R. Martin!)

Out of curiosity, what fantasy authors do you like of the last decade or so?

lemon_sherbert

Hmm, all these positive reviews are making me want to take another crack at this series...

Amhran Nua

ixoy wrote: »

I do think though that there's more than enough unique and interesting ones in the series.

Unique to the series or unique to someone else's series?

ixoy wrote: »

I don't believe the fact some are re-incarnated in some form is a shortcut because it's generally fuelled by a plot (i.e. there's a reason for it and it can be fun trying to tease it out).

Again, writers like Stephen King and Moorcock can get away with archetypes because thats what they are trying to do, very obviously - its used to enhance the story if you spot it (count the number of baddies with the initials R and F in King's work) - not through the back door like Erikson who tries to disguise it in the swarm of new characters.

ixoy wrote: »

The etymology angle doesn't bother me. Too often in books the names are tied down to directly to the culture - like Nevore says it can be even lazier to do it like this.

I think you may have missed my point here - I'm not saying all the hulking warriors should be called Grund Axsson, but that there should be a "ring" to names linking them to their milieu. Tolkien for example spent a great deal of time creating entirely new etymologies and indeed languages; when you read his books you can tell without asking who is an elf and who is a dwarf, a hobbit from an inhabitant of Gondor, although they bear little relation to existing languages and cultures.

That time and effort shows through in what is a quality work which resonates with readers, culminating in three blockbuster movies. Erikson, on the other hand, is Uwe Boll territory.

ixoy wrote: »

Plot - Erikson has claimed, from the start, that he's got a grand plan.

The only question is how could you tell that from the random meanderings of the rest of the plots in any given chapter? Donaldson's Gap series is an example of a breathtaking mastery of the weaving of disparate threads into a very much non DEM ending, marvellous work from an author at his peak.

ixoy wrote: »

I believe him and the rate of delivery indicates that he knows where's he going.

Or that he can't believe his luck and is rattling them off as fast as the keyboard can take it before someone catches on.

ixoy wrote: »

I don't think he's using "deus-ex machina" very often at all. There's not many cases where a whole situation is altered via a magic wand - the one you cited doesn't really apply (IMO).

I'm puzzled as to how you feel that

a wagon popping up out of nowhere complete with an airdrop of supplies for the starving refugees before vanishing off into the ether

qualifies as not deus ex machina.

ixoy wrote: »

but he needs someone to cut down on some of the more rambling descriptions and conversations.

Tis called padding, and doorstop novelists everywhere are familiar with it.

The closer I look at the series the fewer clothes Emporer Kellanved appears to be wearing, to be honest.

ixoy wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what fantasy authors do you like of the last decade or so?

There's a thread about recommended fantasy and sci fi books where I've posted a few of my favourites. I'm not sure why you stipulated the last decade or so, there are great books from many periods. Sci-fi from the 1950s can be fascinating, a far cry from Gibson's neuromancer. I guess fantasy had its heyday in the 1980s and 1990s - Moorcock actually had a hair band where he composed metal ballads about his characters, Hawkwind it was called, great stuff. Never destined for the charts, but legend nonetheless. I cut my teeth on Urusla leGuin's Earthsea work at an indecently young age.

lemon_sherbert wrote: »

Hmm, all these positive reviews are making me want to take another crack at this series...

Indeed, the Black Company Chronicles are looking fairly enticing at this stage.

ixoy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Again, writers like Stephen King and Moorcock can get away with archetypes because thats what they are trying to do, very obviously - its used to enhance the story if you spot it (count the number of baddies with the initials R and F in King's work) - not through the back door like Erikson who tries to disguise it in the swarm of new characters.

So you're saying that King deliberately re-uses archetypes in a way that is purposely clear to the fans (such as Randall Flagg and the other R.F. baddies) but that Erikson re-uses them in a lazy way? Not sure I agree with that - there's enough difference in the main set of characters for me, no more or less than many other series. Sure there's some who are somewhat interchangeable (and yes, sometimes it's because they're re-incarnations, etc) but I think he's done it well enough.

I think you may have missed my point here - I'm not saying all the hulking warriors should be called Grund Axsson, but that there should be a "ring" to names linking them to their milieu. Tolkien for example spent a great deal of time creating entirely new etymologies and indeed languages; when you read his books you can tell without asking who is an elf and who is a dwarf, a hobbit from an inhabitant of Gondor, although they bear little relation to existing languages and cultures.

I don't think too many fantasy series bother to do this to any degree. One that did, that I noticed recently, was Greg Keyes' series and yes it did work well but it didn't add too much in the end. I'm not sure I want to have all elves with soft consonants in their names, or the chitinous ant creatures to always be replete with apostrophes.

EDIT: Just read an article on names in fantasy series, and there's a poster here who lays out reasons why they like the names in the Malazan series.

That time and effort shows through in what is a quality work which resonates with readers, culminating in three blockbuster movies. Erikson, on the other hand, is Uwe Boll territory.

Oh come on - you're now claiming Erikson is the worst author in fantasy circles? There's plenty of discerning readers here, most of whom enjoy Erikson. You can't honestly believe we'd all read any old rubbish and that only you've seen through this?

Donaldson's Gap series is an example of a breathtaking mastery of the weaving of disparate threads into a very much non DEM ending, marvellous work from an author at his peak.

No disagreement here - the Gap series is one of the finest I've ever read. It's got great characterisation and wonderfully tight plotting.
If you want deus-ex machina in sci-fi, check out the Night's Dawn trilogy..

Or that he can't believe his luck and is rattling them off as fast as the keyboard can take it before someone catches on.

Or maybe we're all enjoying them for the sort of heady fun that they are and letting us try and untangle the intricate plot lines. Yes there might be something to be said for not having to disentagle and infer so much, but for many of us that's half the fun.

The closer I look at the series the fewer clothes Emporer Kellanved appears to be wearing, to be honest.

It's a series that looks like it could fall apart at times but somehow, I think, Erikson keeps getting away with it. It's like an insane house of cards that keeps building upwards but has yet to tumble.

I'm not sure why you stipulated the last decade or so, there are great books from many periods.

Primarily because you cited Moorcock and wondered if you liked any of the current fantasy authors. There's some excellent ones out there writing - George R.R. Martin, Patrick Rothuss, F. Scott Lynch. All of those are quite tightly written where the author isn't knocking them out (as you feel above) so are worth checking out if you haven't already. I'd also put China Miéville in there as a contemporary author above nearly all others and with numerous critical plaudits to his name.

Sci-fi from the 1950s can be fascinating, a far cry from Gibson's neuromancer.

I generally find, for me, it doesn't age too well. Partially that's because other authors subsequently build up on the original idea - so Rama has a BFO in the sky but, for me, my introduction would be by way of Greg Bear's Eon.
I've read a good bit of Philip K. Dick's short stories, all of Arthur C. Clarke's short stories, and some old Assimov and there's some excellent ideas there alright but I always find myself more involved in some of the newer authors.

pljudge321

I always thought the Andii and Edur names were very distinctive, you can usually tell an Andii name from any of the other characters instantly. The majority of the malazan characters in the series never really go by their birth name so its hard to give most of the characters birthplaces.

I agree that there maybe should be more distinction between characters coming from

civilisations that trace their origins back to the first empire

and those that don't.

Amhran Nua

ixoy wrote: »

So you're saying that King deliberately re-uses archetypes in a way that is purposely clear to the fans (such as Randall Flagg and the other R.F. baddies) but that Erikson re-uses them in a lazy way?

The most notable difference is that King uses them across different series', not in the same book. If you had fifty carbon copy scary characters popping up without the initials R and F in one voluminous tome you be closer to what Erikson is doing.

ixoy wrote: »

I'm not sure I want to have all elves with soft consonants in their names, or the chitinous ant creatures to always be replete with apostrophes.

Again, you've missed what I'm saying, while actually underlining my point. The fictional race of elves was set up and owned entirely by Tolkien by doing exactly what Erikson did not - creating a unique linguistic feel and history for them. You associate effete treehoppers with soft consonant names now, as do most readers of fantasy works, because Tolkien did it first, and did it right. There is no reason that you couldn't create an entirely new linguistic thread for any new race or nationality you could imagine, just as he did. It takes a bit of time and effort, which Erikson elected not to bother with, for which his work suffers badly, in particular given his penchant for expressing his half dozen archetypes anew every chapter.

ixoy wrote: »

EDIT: Just read an article on names in fantasy series, and there's a poster here who lays out reasons why they like the names in the Malazan series.

He says he likes the way the individual names sound, which is not the point I was making. Funnily enough though the article itself supports exactly what I'm talking about.

ixoy wrote: »

Oh come on - you're now claiming Erikson is the worst author in fantasy circles? There's plenty of discerning readers here, most of whom enjoy Erikson. You can't honestly believe we'd all read any old rubbish and that only you've seen through this?

As already mentioned, there are plenty of negative reviews of his work, which I linked to and posted in the thread, many of which echo the problems I have raised.

ixoy wrote: »

If you want deus-ex machina in sci-fi, check out the Night's Dawn trilogy..

An eye-watering kidney punch of an ending to an otherwise incredible series. This is what happens when an author just runs out of ideas/ingenuity and magicks it all away. One difference though is that he saved it for the end, while with Erikson its part of the daily routine.

ixoy wrote: »

Or maybe we're all enjoying them for the sort of heady fun that they are and letting us try and untangle the intricate plot lines. Yes there might be something to be said for not having to disentagle and infer so much, but for many of us that's half the fun.

As the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t.

ixoy wrote: »

It's a series that looks like it could fall apart at times but somehow, I think, Erikson keeps getting away with it. It's like an insane house of cards that keeps building upwards but has yet to tumble.

If the criteria for "tumbling" is that he stops rolling them out, then yes, it has yet to tumble.

ixoy wrote: »

Primarily because you cited Moorcock and wondered if you liked any of the current fantasy authors. There's some excellent ones out there writing - George R.R. Martin, Patrick Rothuss, F. Scott Lynch. All of those are quite tightly written where the author isn't knocking them out (as you feel above) so are worth checking out if you haven't already. I'd also put China Miéville in there as a contemporary author above nearly all others and with numerous critical plaudits to his name.

What I find interesting about this comment is the subtext implying that many of the readers of Erikson might be unfamiliar with Moorcock's work, which is probably accurate.

The character Anomander Rake is a practical carbon copy of Michael Moorcock's Elric character, albino appearance, soul drinking sword, all he needed to do was make it sing and the "homage" would be complete. Other reviewers have pointed out the virtual plagiarism from the Black company series, and I'm fairly certain a few more thinly disguised remixes could be dug out given the inclination to look for them.

I am indeed familiar with many more modern works, that a credible stab was made at Erikson's efforts should be testament enough to that.

ixoy wrote: »

I generally find, for me, it doesn't age too well. Partially that's because other authors subsequently build up on the original idea - so Rama has a BFO in the sky but, for me, my introduction would be by way of Greg Bear's Eon.
I've read a good bit of Philip K. Dick's short stories, all of Arthur C. Clarke's short stories, and some old Assimov and there's some excellent ideas there alright but I always find myself more involved in some of the newer authors.

The work of the 1950s is particularly interesting because it represents the first time the realistic concept of space flight and exploration entered into the mindset of the general public. Von Braun's work was becoming widely known, the sciences were rapidly developing, the dangers of nuclear power were not yet understood, the world seemed to be on the cusp of an undreamt-of glorious new age.

With the universe at their doorsteps, those writers set the pace for much of what was to come. Some of the stuff you can find from back then is still not in the mainstream, for example the Cordwainer Smith story "The Game of Rat and Dragon".

I don't see the need to make a great differentiation between good sci fi from the 1950s and more modern efforts, in particular the likes of Alastair Reynolds.

Vegeta

Sounds like you didn't want to like them tbh

Amhran Nua

Vegeta wrote: »

Sounds like you didn't want to like them tbh

I wouldn't have bought half the books if that were the case, as already mentioned.

pljudge321

How many of the books have you read? Also seems strange that you started on Reaper's Gale.

Amhran Nua

pljudge321 wrote: »

How many of the books have you read? Also seems strange that you started on Reaper's Gale.

Here. Why would that be strange?

pljudge321

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Here. Why would that be strange?

Because its book 7 in a series of 10, the usual way would be to start at the first book.

Amhran Nua

pljudge321 wrote: »

Because its book 7 in a series of 10, the usual way would be to start at the first book.

Generally I'd pick up books at a second hand bookshop after leafing through them, and decide on that basis if its worth picking up the rest. I've no idea if thats how most people come across their books, thats what I do anyway. In fairness I'd probably be less irritated if I hadn't gotten so many of them, but nobody can say they weren't given a fair chance. I'm not sure what relevance this has to the discussion one way or the other?

ixoy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The most notable difference is that King uses them across different series', not in the same book. If you had fifty carbon copy scary characters popping up without the initials R and F in one voluminous tome you be closer to what Erikson is doing.

I actually had that R.F. point in an original post that got lost but still, how is it any more acceptable to do it across multiple series? How is it less lazy? Or is trying to connect them all through the Dark Tower series, and the whole meta angle there, enough to get him off the hook?

There is no reason that you couldn't create an entirely new linguistic thread for any new race or nationality you could imagine, just as he did. It takes a bit of time and effort, which Erikson elected not to bother with, for which his work suffers badly, in particular given his penchant for expressing his half dozen archetypes anew every chapter.

Okay how many other authors have done this in fantasy? Nearly all works borrow from the linguistic conventions set up by Tolkein. How many have subverted it? Should Erikson do it because of the scale of his work? I really don't see why you're being so particularly tough on this when it's rare for many to expend much effort on it.

An eye-watering kidney punch of an ending to an otherwise incredible series. This is what happens when an author just runs out of ideas/ingenuity and magicks it all away. One difference though is that he saved it for the end, while with Erikson its part of the daily routine.

Daily? Now you make it sound like an occurrence in every chapter. I'll grant you that there's been maybe a few times too many where the caravans appear and save the day, but in general I'm just not noticing it.

If the criteria for "tumbling" is that he stops rolling them out, then yes, it has yet to tumble.

I think the series is a little like "Lost" in some regards. He has an end in sight, as they do, and he's rushing along at times hoping not too many questions are asked. Like in that series, there's people with unknown motiviations and both will probably end with many things unexplained. "Lost" also has a reputation for having characters just show up to save/alter the plot! And yet I enjoy both - not for their literary or intelligent structure all the time, but because they're entertaining, make me think (in ways perhaps not intended). I don't over analyse!

What I find interesting about this comment is the subtext implying that many of the readers of Erikson might be unfamiliar with Moorcock's work, which is probably accurate.

I'd say it is very accurate. I've read a fair bit of fantasy, but have yet to read Moorcock's Elric work. It's on a "to read" list somewhere, but not far up it (I want to read "The Book of the New Sun" first, for example in the classics).
Nonetheless fantasy books have many tropes and I think Erikson has created more than enough of his own to be worthy of reading. Most fantasy books are unoriginal, when dissected, and I think Erikson's ancient cultures, history, etc. have more than enough in them.

I am indeed familiar with many more modern works, that a credible stab was made at Erikson's efforts should be testament enough to that.

Which modern works would you hold out as good examples of writing? I might've missed something but I only noticed Moorcock and Donaldson, hardly new writers at this point (the Covenant series is from the '80s IIRC, discounting the latest quartet). In particular do you rate any of the authors that have appeared in the last decade?

With the universe at their doorsteps, those writers set the pace for much of what was to come. Some of the stuff you can find from back then is still not in the mainstream, for example the Cordwainer Smith story "The Game of Rat and Dragon".

Yes, but I still sometimes find the style and settings to be old. Even if it's Dick's female characters generally meriting not much more than their bosom description, it detracts from my engagement. Or for example the science - computer technology seeming particularly archaic. It's not to say that this happens with them all (far from it) but it affects one of the qualities I seek from sci-fi. I appreciate they've great merit from tracing the origins of modern sci-fi, but it's just necessarily what I want.

Amhran Nua

ixoy wrote: »

I actually had that R.F. point in an original post that got lost but still, how is it any more acceptable to do it across multiple series? How is it less lazy? Or is trying to connect them all through the Dark Tower series, and the whole meta angle there, enough to get him off the hook?

In King's case these are different books, different stories, different characters. RF is one of the very few that is archetyped, perhaps the only one. The final realisation of the connection (for those that spot it) is both subtle and crude, a chilling epitaph worthy of a master of horror fiction, the last word in "he's behind you!".

In Erikson's case he, to give an quick overview, raids the work of original writers quite liberally, slaps a together random syllables and calls them names, fleshes out the characters with very standard issue archetypes, perhaps with the odd quirk, and creates and destroys them with abandon, hoping it won't be spotted, the very epitome of baffling with bullsh*t.

ixoy wrote: »

Okay how many other authors have done this in fantasy? Nearly all works borrow from the linguistic conventions set up by Tolkein.

Not at all. That article you linked to gives many good examples, LeGuin's Earthsea books, Eddings, Hobb, even Pratchett. As we are touching on Donaldson's work by the by, the etymology and nomenclature of the characters in his Gap series is on the face of it a randomised disaster, until you realise that he's portraying a world of melded cultural identities, with widespread mingling of names and identities. In this case it actually adds to the story. There are a lot of levels to his books, from Wagnerian undertones to his refusal to use dates or exact numbers (an attempt to future proof them?).

ixoy wrote: »

Daily? Now you make it sound like an occurrence in every chapter. I'll grant you that there's been maybe a few times too many where the caravans appear and save the day, but in general I'm just not noticing it.

Once is once too often as far as I'm concerned.

ixoy wrote: »

I think the series is a little like "Lost" in some regards. ... I don't over analyse!

I've never watched Lost, so I wouldn't really know. As for over analysis, when it comes to fantasy fiction and science fiction you do need to give them a lot of legroom - in this case that just wasn't enough, unfortunately.

ixoy wrote: »

I'd say it is very accurate. I've read a fair bit of fantasy, but have yet to read Moorcock's Elric work. It's on a "to read" list somewhere, but not far up it (I want to read "The Book of the New Sun" first, for example in the classics).

If you wanted a standalone Moorcock book to get you going, I'd highly recommend "The Warhound and the World's Pain".

ixoy wrote: »

Most fantasy books are unoriginal, when dissected, and I think Erikson's ancient cultures, history, etc. have more than enough in them.

If you look a bit closer though, all he's done is just take the standard tropes and turned them on their heads.

The aged but nimble wizard and lethal yet haunted assassin archetypes are both black, what a shocker, and dogs civilised men instead of the other way round.

As already mentioned he does have some great ideas, but in terms of culture, you can't just invent a swathe of cameo characters and call it world building.

ixoy wrote: »

Which modern works would you hold out as good examples of writing? I might've missed something but I only noticed Moorcock and Donaldson, hardly new writers at this point (the Covenant series is from the '80s IIRC, discounting the latest quartet). In particular do you rate any of the authors that have appeared in the last decade?

The five books in the Gap series were finished in 1996. Scott Lynch's work, the Lies of Locke Lamora, was very good, as I mentioned in the earlier thread about good fantasy books. Robin Hobb is also great, as is George RR Martin (I'd actually forgotten about him, must pick up the rest of the series, although maybe one at a time this time! I've learned me lesson. ).

One of the things I like about fantasy though is that it doesn't grow old, unlike sci-fi, which is by its nature set in the future, which must inevitably become the present at some stage. Thus, comparing the work of older sci-fi writers to the work of older fantasy writers is chalk and cheese, really. One of the greatest and most enduring fantasy classics of all time, the Lord of the Rings, was written in the 1940s!

Do you feel there has been a shift in fantasy writing over the last ten years that would differentiate it from previous efforts, and if so, in what way? How would this impact on writers like Martin who you also enjoy, whose work stretches over several decades? Also, I have to admit to a certain amount of curiosity as to the overall point you are trying to make here.

ixoy wrote: »

Yes, but I still sometimes find the style and settings to be old.

Have a read of that story I linked to and see what you think, its pretty short. The pioneers of the genre explored avenues with untrammelled imagination which more recent writers apparently aren't aware of or have forgotten, probably due to the accumulation of our own cultural and technological knowledge.

pljudge321

The Tyrgalle Trade Guild caravans don't "just appear", its made pretty clear that it was orchestrated by Dujek and Quick Ben, the same Guild features again later in the series. Its no more a deus ex machina then the eagles in Lord of the Rings.

Amhran Nua

pljudge321 wrote: »

The Tyrgalle Trade Guild caravans don't "just appear", its made pretty clear that it was orchestrated by Dujek and Quick Ben, the same Guild features again later in the series. Its no more a deus ex machina then the eagles in Lord of the Rings.

A rose is a rose by any other name...

At least the eagles have an earlier connection within the story, as well as in the Hobbit, plus they are deeply interwoven throughout his histories. A better comparison might be if Frodo and Sam were saved by balloon people riding dirigibles of woven reeds at the end.

Amhran Nua

Just to wrap most of this up, here's a lengthy and amusing list of jaded mechanics and tropes used by the series:

* Achey Scars, born by Toc the Younger (eye)
* The Alliance (The forces arrayed against the Malazan Empire's invasion of Genabackis, and later against the Pannion Domin.)
o In backstory, most of the Elder Gods and ascendants and the Jaghut and T'lan Imass coming together to chain the Crippled God
* Aloof Big Brother (Fear Sengar and Tavore Parran as a Gender Flip)
* Amnesiac Dissonance (Apsalar is an odd case. She has most of her old memories, but she got some of Cotillion's memories from when he possessed her.)
* And I Must Scream (Lots of examples)
* Animorphism (Soletaken and D'ivers)
* Anti Villain: Cotillion is an obvious example. Anomander Rake looks like one at first, but gradually turns out to be more purely heroic.
* Anyone Can Die: Most poignantly demonstrated at the end of Memories of Ice with the death of Sergeant Whiskeyjack. But see also Death Is Cheap, below.
* Arc Fatigue (The Tiste Edur and Jade Giant storylines.)
* Artifact Of Doom
* Ass Pull: See also Deus Ex Machina below.
* Author Tract (Gets really Anvilicious in Toll the Hounds with the long ramblings in omniscient voice.)
* Ax Crazy (Smiles)
* Badass Army: Up the wazoo, Bridgeburners and Bonehunters are two examples.
* Badass (Most obvious examples are Anomander Rake, Karsa Orlong and Silchas Ruin. Many Bridgeburners also qualify.)
* Badass Normal
* Big Bad (The Crippled God. Although he is not introduced until Memories of Ice and plays next to no role in several books.
o Technically, he's mentioned in passing in books one and two- it's just not until Memories of Ice that the reader becomes aware of his central role.
* Black And Gray Morality (alliance vs. Pannion Domin in Memories of Ice; Crippled God vs. everyone else)
* Black And White Morality (Anomander Rake vs. Chaos in Toll the Hounds)
* Blessed With Suck
* Born Lucky (Corabb Bhilan Thenu'alas)
* Bottle Fairy (Sergeant Helian is an oddly competent bottle fairy, managing to lead an invasion force across Lether while being drunk the whole time)
* Break The Cutie (Felisin Paran)
* Broken Bird (Ditto)
* Butch Lesbian (Tavore Paran)
* Canon Sue (Arguably Whiskeyjack). And every third character.
* Celibate Hero (Shield Anvil Itkovian)
* Chekhov's Gun (Most notably, Whiskeyjack's injured leg in Memories of Ice)
* Chivalrous Pervert (Tehol Beddict)
* Creepy Child (Kettle)
* Colony Drop (Moon's Spawn getting dropped on the Pannon Domin army in Memories of Ice)
* Conservation Of Ninjitsu (Despite the Claw being played up as elite assassins and mages, Kalam manages to tear through the best of them in both Deadhouse Gates and again in The Bonehunters. However, he ends both occasions badly wounded and is Not Quite Dead at the end of Bonehunters. Somewhat justified by him being a Clawmaster and a match for the patron god of assassins, pre-ascension.)
* Constructed World
* Cool Sword (Dragnipur, Karsa's bloodwood swords.)
* Dance Battler (Some Shadow Dancers. You don't want to mess with them.)
* Dark Action Girl / Dark Magical Girl (Apsalar)
* Dark Is Not Evil (Anomander Rake and the Tiste Andii in general.)
* Deadpan Snarker (Lots of them)
* Death From Above (Moon's Spawn)
* Death Is Cheap: Hood, the god of death, apparently does a shoddy job at keeping the dead dead, because people come Back From The Dead (or Back From the Not Quite Dead) in droves. In Gardens of the Moon alone we have at least Hairlock, Ganoes Paran and Tattersail.
* Death Seeker
* Demonic Possession (Okay, divine possession. Close enough.)
* Deus Ex Machina (This is the primary purpose of the Houses of Azath. In addition, the Trygalle Trading Guild in Deadhouse Gates, the army of Bridgeburner ghosts in House of Chains.)
* Diabolus Ex Machina
* Did I Just Say That Out Loud (Iskaral Pust)
* Did You Just Punch Out Cthulhu (Quick Ben does this a lot)
o Notably subverted with the Crippled God.
* Doorstopper: All the books are over 700 pages, some up to 1200.
* Drop The Hammer: Caladan Brood wields a great hammer so badass that it has the power to awaken the sleeping earth goddess Burn (whose body is apparently the earth itself).
* Dual Wielding (knifes, swords, cutlasses, flails...)
* Elemental Powers (more than the traditional four)
* The Empire (The Malazan Empire, somewhat subverted in that many of the protagonists work for it and in that maybe it isn't as evil as it seems at first glance. The Lether Empire on the other hand is a straight example.)
* Ensemble Darkhorse (Felisin)
* Et Tu Brute (Rhulad finally snaps when Udinaas, the closest thing he had to a friend, leaves him. Not that Udinaas had a choice in the matter...)
* Everythings Better With Chickens at Tehol Beddict's house in Reaper's Gale.
* Evil Albino (Silchas Ruin, described as "the most cruel of the three sons of Mother Dark".)
* Evil Chancellor (Triban Gnol)
* Fantastic Racism (Both subverted and played straight. Humans are racist towards other humans just like in real life, but the Tiste races hate each other.)
* Fate Worse Than Death (Getting killed by Dragnipur equals spending eternity chained to the gates of the Warren of Darkness.
* Floating Continent (Moon's Spawn. And the island of Drift Avalii floats literally in the ocean.)
* Functional Magic (The Warrens)
* Genius Loci (The Mockra Warren and Azath Houses)
* Gondor Calls For Aid (the siege of Capustan in Memories of Ice, although the besieged are strangers to the heroes)
* Grey And Gray Morality (Malazans vs. Darujhistan in Gardens of the Moon, Tiste Edur vs. Letherii in Midnight Tides)
* Hellhounds (The Hounds of Shadow, and later, the Deragoth (Hounds of Darkness) and Hounds of Light)
* Hellish Horse (Karsa's horse, Havok)
o both of them
* Her Heart Will Go On ( Seren Pedac)
* Heroic Sociopath (Karsa Orlong, especially early on.)
* Heterosexual Life Partners
* Hide Your Lesbians (Tavore Paran and T'amber)
* Im A Humanitarian
* Implacable Man (The Forkul Assail and T'lan Imass are races composed of implacable men.)
* Jack Attack: (Sargent Whiskyjack.)
* Jigsaw Puzzle Plot: (And only half the pieces are available....)
* Kaleidoscope Eyes (Anomander Rake)
* Karmic Death (Most of the antagonists that don't die in direct battle get one of these.)
* Kill Em All (75% of the Loads And Loads Of Characters will not be breathing by the end of their third book. A good third won't make it to the end of their debut book. It's called Book of the Fallen for a reason.)
* Kill The Cutie: (Tattersail in Gardens of the Moon.)
* Knife Nut (Smiles)
* Knight Templar (most of the Tiste Liosan seem to be this way)
* Kudzu Plot (Oh, boy...)
* Light Is Not Good (the Tiste Liosan)
* Lipstick Lesbian (Stonny Menackis)
* Loads And Loads Of Characters (Reaper's Gale has seventy-two named Malazan soldiers. Seventy-two. Steven Erikson tries to give them all distinctive personalities, and fails.)
* Loads And Loads Of Races (And they're all Proud Warrior Race Guys.)
* Love Martyr (Crokus/Cutter for Apsalar)
* Love It Or Hate It (The series as a whole, and Midnight Tides in particular)
* Mask Power (Redmask, the Seguleh)
* The Masochism Tango (Iskaral Pust and Mogora, Karsa Orlong and Samar Dev)
* Mauve Shirt (mostly Malazan soldiers; it is possible that the Bridgeburners' burgundy uniforms are a Lampshade Hanging on the whole Red Shirt thing)
* Mayfly December Romance (Whiskeyjack (human middle age) and Korlat (millennia) in Memories of Ice, Spinnock Durav (also millennia) and Salind (teenager) in Toll the Hounds)
* Messianic Archetype (Anomander Rake in Toll the Hounds. Don't forget Coltaine in Deadhouse Gates, the guy ends up being crucified on a hill top then is reborn, not to mention the devotion and worship that surrounds him both before and after his 'death' the author actually seems to go out of his way to add parallels between him and good old JC )
* Mind Rape
* Medieval Stasis (Not a pure example. While the world is truly ancient, different civilizations, some of which not even human, have risen and fallen many times.)
* Moral Event Horizon (A particularly obvious example, Sirryn Kanar in Reaper's Gale seems to exist solely to cross it repeatedly.)
* MS T3k Mantra (Don't try to make sense of the timeline; really, don't.)
* Mushroom Samba (the hallucinogenic honey in The Bonehunters)
* Mytharc (the backstory covers literally hundreds of thousands of years, repeatedly)
* Names To Run Away From Really Fast ("The Emperor Of A Thousand Deaths", Icarium Lifestealer, "The Son Of Darkness")
* The Neidermeyer
* No Biochemical Barriers (all kinds of hybrids between different intelligent species)
* No One Could Survive That (several times with different characters)
* The Not Secret (Sgt.Fiddler Strings and Daseem Ultor Traveler don't seem to be fooling anyone who's even heard of them, pre-name change)
* Obfuscating Stupidity: Kruppe, Tehol Beddict, Bugg. Possibly also Iskaral Pust, although he might just be genuinely mad.
* Older Than They Think (The series owes a consdiderable debt to The Black Company.)
* Oracular Urchin (Kettle, Grub)
* Our Demons Are Different
* Our Dragons Are Different
* Our Elves Are Better (Tiste races)
* Our Orcs Are Different (The Jaghuts: with the exception of the Tyrants, they are actually peaceful in nature.)
* Our Zombies Are Different (The T'lan Imass).
* Overshadowed By Awesome (Crokus is an absolutely lethal assassin and knife fighter, whose skills surpass people who were Badass in the first book. He just keeps ending up in fights with immortals, demigods and monsters.)
o He finally gets to take on opponents in his weight class in Toll The Hounds, and shines.
* Physical God (All the Ascendants and Elder Gods.)
* Planet Eris (The Malazan world may be the most insane Constructed World in the history of fantasy.)
* Proud Warrior Race Guy (Karsa Orlong. Again. And many others.)
o Karsa Orlong might also be seen as an attempt at a subversion or deconstruction.
* Ragtag Bunch Of Misfits (Seems to be a requirement to join the Malazan army.)
* Rape Is The New Dead Parents (Felisin, Stonny)
* Religion Of Evil (The Faith of the Pannion Seer.)
* Rotating Arcs
* Rule Of Cool (As of Memories of Ice, zombie velociraptors with swords for hands.)
* The Scrappy (The Mhbye in Memories of Ice. Depending on who you ask Karsa Orlong and/or Kruppe as well.)
* Sealed Badass In A Can
* Sealed Evil In A Can (Or buried in a barrow. Or chained to a monolith. Or captured by a House of the Azath. Grave robbing and amateur archeology are dangerous indeed in this world. Played straight, but also subverted at least once, in that the big, unstoppable evil gods rose... to be dispatched within minutes by the new Badasses who have arisen to replace them.)
* Seasonal Rot (House of Chains and most of the books that follow it.)
* Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Cynicism (Leaning to the "cynical" side.)
* Smug Snake (Triban Gnol, Karos Invictad)
* Soul Jar (Jaghut Finnests)
* Species Lost And Found (repeatedly)
* Sword Fights (lots of them)
* The Messiah (Trull Sengar)
* The Nascent Did It
* The Power Of Friendship (Is what allows the T'Lan Imass Tool and Onrack to start feeling emotions again. Is also what enables Beak's Heroic Sacrifice.)
* The Undead and Dem Bones
* Third Person Person (Kruppe)
* This Is Your Brain On Evil (About half of the Crippled God's followers get screwed over because they allied with him.)
* Thirty Xanatos Pileup (Every god, Ascendant, and major human leader has some sort of long-range plan)
* Turncoat
* Tykebomb (Apsalar and Rud Elalle)
* Unstoppable Rage (Icarium)
* Viewers Are Geniuses
* Wangst: So bad it results in Angst Dissonance for many readers. The Tiste Andii explicitly have Wangst as their Hat... although they are not more wangsty than everyone else...
* We Hardly Knew Ye: Tattersail
* With Great Power Comes Great Insanity (Icarium, Sinn, Feather Witch, Hannan Mosag and lots of the followers of the Crippled God)
* Who Wants To Live Forever (The "naturally immortal species are immune to this" angle is subverted with the Tiste Andii; also, the Emperor of a Thousand Deaths is an example of the Blessed With Suck variety.)
* World Of Badass (Very nearly everyone is a badass to some degree.)
* Woobie Destroyer of Worlds (The Crippled God.)
* You Shall Not Pass: Trull Sengar fights Icarium to a standstill to protect the child army of House Shadow.

ixoy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

In King's case these are different books, different stories, different characters.

Up to a point though - they're ultimately all tied together in the Dark Tower series. In fact that series is, at times, has meta critique and examines different versions of the same people.

In Erikson's case he, to give an quick overview, raids the work of original writers quite liberally, slaps a together random syllables and calls them names, fleshes out the characters with very standard issue archetypes, perhaps with the odd quirk, and creates and destroys them with abandon, hoping it won't be spotted, the very epitome of baffling with bullsh*t.

Well I enjoy his characters but I don't think he's looking to achieve the depth of characterisation that we'd see in GRRM or Hobb's work. At least I hope he doesn't think he's achieving the same sort of depth!

That article you linked to gives many good examples, LeGuin's Earthsea books, Eddings, Hobb, even Pratchett.

Well Hobb's books for example are generally of the one race, so they don't fit too closely with the earlier discussion. If it's to do with just where you originate though, could you not just use the same reasoning as you did with Donaldson's gap series? After all these cultures are generally meant to be intermingled or lost tribes, etc so it's feasible there would be a mingling of names. It's not really as if we'd find Steve and Tho'sad in the same tribe.

There are a lot of levels to his books, from Wagnerian undertones to his refusal to use dates or exact numbers (an attempt to future proof them?).

I remember the lack of dates alright, but the Wagnerian undertones would pass me by. Incidentally it's a sci-fi novel that will age well because it's more about characters and political maneouvering than it is about sci-fi (the central concept of the Gap aside).

If you wanted a standalone Moorcock book to get you going, I'd highly recommend "The Warhound and the World's Pain".

Might check it out - I've seen Elric mentioned enough elsewhere to be curious.

If you look a bit closer though, all he's done is just take the standard tropes and turned them on their heads.

Is that not something in and of itself rather than just use the tropes? I genuinely think many of these flaws could be laid at the feet of many writers.

One of the greatest and most enduring fantasy classics of all time, the Lord of the Rings, was written in the 1940s!

A case could be made that Tolkein was a great world builder but not always adept at writing the story itself - the Council of Elrond is a great example of what could be cut as it stiffled narration. As for Tom Bombadil...

Do you feel there has been a shift in fantasy writing over the last ten years that would differentiate it from previous efforts, and if so, in what way?

Well with China Miéville yes - he's created the "new weird" genre, an interesting mix of steam-punk, fantasy, and just plain weird. F. Scott Lynch has an interesting con artist angle to it - yes, it reminds me a little of Lankhmar but I think it's tempered with a darker edge. George R. R. Martin is probably not a true shift in direction - just a very well written example that could come from any age (much like Tad William's "Memory.. " trilogy).
Others are probably more returns to older forms - my understanding is that Joe Abercrombie's "First Law" series harkens back to more brutal '80s fare.

Also, I have to admit to a certain amount of curiosity as to the overall point you are trying to make here.

Merely that I think fantasy is still evolving and we're not always re-hashing the same ideas. That includes Erikson, to my mind, but also others such as those listed above.
As to the fantasy tropes mentioned - it'd be interesting to see how many you could apply to any fantasy series picked at random.

Amhran Nua

ixoy wrote: »

Up to a point though - they're ultimately all tied together in the Dark Tower series.

No, they aren't, there are a few other books mentioned very briefly in the Dark tower series, as in perhaps a paragraph or two out of the whole lot.

ixoy wrote: »

Well I enjoy his characters but I don't think he's looking to achieve the depth of characterisation that we'd see in GRRM or Hobb's work. At least I hope he doesn't think he's achieving the same sort of depth!

I rather doubt it, since most of them end up dead in short order.

ixoy wrote: »

Well Hobb's books for example are generally of the one race, so they don't fit too closely with the earlier discussion.

Same with the Earthsea books, but there are many different nationalities. Yes, nomenclature can and should extend to national boundaries, just as it always does in real life. Even if you were only dealing with one nationality and race, it still makes a huge difference, since its different from our own.

ixoy wrote: »

If it's to do with just where you originate though, could you not just use the same reasoning as you did with Donaldson's gap series? After all these cultures are generally meant to be intermingled or lost tribes, etc so it's feasible there would be a mingling of names. It's not really as if we'd find Steve and Tho'sad in the same tribe.

It worked for Donaldson because people are already familiar with naming conventions in the real world. In an imaginary made-up world we can't be familiar with them, so to mingle them thoroughly would be pointless and in fact indistinguishable from random. Also the implication in Donaldson's work is that of free and fast mass global travel between countries and areas, along with a relaxation of migration laws. None of which is applicable to any sort of fantasy world, and certainly not Erikson's.

ixoy wrote: »

Might check it out - I've seen Elric mentioned enough elsewhere to be curious.

Its not one of the Elric books, just one of the mad tangents MM takes himself off on upon occasion, set in the middle ages period.

ixoy wrote: »

Is that not something in and of itself rather than just use the tropes? I genuinely think many of these flaws could be laid at the feet of many writers.

Er, you're blaming stereotypes of many other writers in order to excuse that Erikson couldn't make up his own original work?

ixoy wrote: »

A case could be made that Tolkein was a great world builder but not always adept at writing the story itself

And yet it remains one of the enduring classics... I think this highlights the importance of the structure, nomenclature, and forethought when creating literary works of this sort; despite the shortcomings of the writing style, Tolkien is still around and still compelling. He wasn't the first of the pure fantasy writers either, take a look at some of the earlier Conan books from the 1920s.

ixoy wrote: »

Well with China Miéville yes - he's created the "new weird" genre, an interesting mix of steam-punk, fantasy, and just plain weird.

Various flavours of weird have been done previously though, to go back to MM, take a look at his mind bending "Dancers at the end of time" books from the 70s. He also does a very good twist on Victorian steampunk.

ixoy wrote: »

F. Scott Lynch has an interesting con artist angle to it - yes, it reminds me a little of Lankhmar but I think it's tempered with a darker edge. George R. R. Martin is probably not a true shift in direction - just a very well written example that could come from any age (much like Tad William's "Memory.. " trilogy).
Others are probably more returns to older forms - my understanding is that Joe Abercrombie's "First Law" series harkens back to more brutal '80s fare.

So, not so much then.

ixoy wrote: »

Merely that I think fantasy is still evolving and we're not always re-hashing the same ideas. That includes Erikson, to my mind, but also others such as those listed above.

Its important to be able to distinguish genuinely new ideas from leftover omelettes like Erikson is serving though - he seems to think if he fires it into your mouth fast enough you won't taste it. Newer isn't always better, especially if its not actually new in the first place, although no doubt it might wow those younger readers who might be seeking the next wave, having never looked at any other wave. Half the Malazan books may as well be blogs, with the amount of padding they have.

ixoy wrote: »

As to the fantasy tropes mentioned - it'd be interesting to see how many you could apply to any fantasy series picked at random.

Ah many of those tropes are a bit silly, like "swordfights", I mean what, or could otherwise be seen as good things, but it does underline several of the issues I have raised here. Take it as light humour.

ixoy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, they aren't, there are a few other books mentioned very briefly in the Dark tower series, as in perhaps a paragraph or two out of the whole lot.

Well without going into spoilers, they kinda are in a very meta way! If you've read up to book six (or five?) you'll know what I mean with that character they meet. He also rifes on other literary sources, such as 'The Wizard of Oz' and Harry Potter. Is it homage or closer to plagarism?

I rather doubt it, since most of them end up dead in short order.

Or get dropped for the next book! I recall looking at the dramatis personnae from Book one and barely recognising a name from those around now. It's more of a plot-based book than a character-based one.

Yes, nomenclature can and should extend to national boundaries, just as it always does in real life. Even if you were only dealing with one nationality and race, it still makes a huge difference, since its different from our own.

Check out (if you haven't) Greg Keyes' "Kingdom of Thorn and Bone". There's a lot of time invested in it relating to language and etymology and it serves a distinct plot purpose. While I don't generally think etymology is too big of a deal, that series does show how, when done right, it can add to a world.

Its not one of the Elric books, just one of the mad tangents MM takes himself off on upon occasion, set in the middle ages period.

Fair enough. I also need to check out Guy Gavriel Kay while I'm at.

Er, you're blaming stereotypes of many other writers in order to excuse that Erikson couldn't make up his own original work?

No - I'm saying though that you could equally harshly criticise many writers and I'm wondering why you're so harsh on Erikson and not others? Is it just because of the acclaim he's getting? It's not as if he's that monster that is Kevin J. Anderson!

despite the shortcomings of the writing style, Tolkien is still around and still compelling.

I personally enjoyed Tad William's "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" series more but it was written distinctly in the mould of "Lord of the Rings" so yeah, there's a lot owed to it setting the template for Big Bad Under a Mountain to be defeated by Prophecy/Magic Sword etc.

Various flavours of weird have been done previously though, to go back to MM, take a look at his mind bending "Dancers at the end of time" books from the 70s. He also does a very good twist on Victorian steampunk.

Oh Victorian steampunk isn't new - just Miéville managed to really add his own stamp to it. Have you tried them?

Would you subscribe to the belief it gets more and more difficult to be original and that it's more now about adding your own interpretation or flavour to existing tropes? What truly original piece has come out in the last couple of decades?

Newer isn't always better, especially if its not actually new in the first place, although no doubt it might wow those younger readers who might be seeking the next wave, having never looked at any other wave.

I'd agree certainly with this from a fantasy perspective, although there's something to be said for building on the works of others, rather than just copying them. Most work of fiction is derivative to some extent or another and it's rare to find one that isn't just a spin on an existing tale - and I don't think anyone is claiming Erikson is doing this, more just some sort of mad set of spinning plates. You're not impressed with this trickery, but the rest of us are watching the mad dash to see it through.

Half the Malazan books may as well be blogs, with the amount of padding they have.

Fair point, but I enjoy reading the occasional blog! Tightly written is not a word anyone would associate with these series. Other authors do go off on tangents too - Neal Stephenson is a very good example. Do you find those more educational and relevant (I know I do)?

Amhran Nua

ixoy wrote: »

He also rifes on other literary sources, such as 'The Wizard of Oz' and Harry Potter. Is it homage or closer to plagarism?

In the context of the larger story, I'd say its closer to homage, since he's not leaning on them too much.

Was the Harry potter reference the ridiculous grenade throwing baddie at the end of the last book?

ixoy wrote: »

Or get dropped for the next book! I recall looking at the dramatis personnae from Book one and barely recognising a name from those around now. It's more of a plot-based book than a character-based one.

Characters and plots are deeply intertwined though, you can't really have one without the other.

ixoy wrote: »

Check out (if you haven't) Greg Keyes' "Kingdom of Thorn and Bone". There's a lot of time invested in it relating to language and etymology and it serves a distinct plot purpose. While I don't generally think etymology is too big of a deal, that series does show how, when done right, it can add to a world.

I'm always on the lookout for new books, I'll take a gander at that.

ixoy wrote: »

No - I'm saying though that you could equally harshly criticise many writers and I'm wondering why you're so harsh on Erikson and not others?

Many of those writers have creative writing skills, a modicum of originality that didn't depend on trying to keep readers bewildered, and have put a tap of work into building and developing their worlds, rather than just blowing them up at every opportunity. Hey, bang, there goes yet another city.

Did he ever get round to destroying Darujhistan, I thought for sure its days were numbered when he had the lads burying those hand nukes at every street corner.

ixoy wrote: »

Oh Victorian steampunk isn't new - just Miéville managed to really add his own stamp to it. Have you tried them?

Would you subscribe to the belief it gets more and more difficult to be original and that it's more now about adding your own interpretation or flavour to existing tropes? What truly original piece has come out in the last couple of decades?

I haven't tried Miéville yet, as I'm not really a fan of weird for its own sake. Or to put it another way, life is weird enough! On the same note I wouldn't say it grows any harder to create new and original works, depending on your definition of "original", and the purpose/intended audience of those works. You might draw up some of the strangest fiction ever seen relatively easily, but nobody would want to read it.

Just off the top of my head, how about a series on some sort of primary spirits trying to stop the basic building blocks of life from taking coherent shape in an oil stained puddle in a run down estate somewhere, using only haikus on a molecular level, with their own motivations which might be completely alien to our own. Has that been done? I don't think so. Would it therefore be new? Probably. Would anyone want to read it? I doubt it, unless you framed it in terms people could relate to, although you could check every other artistic and technique box easily enough.

Which brings us back around to why its not neccessarily a bad thing to build on the work of others - however I think I've exhaustively pointed out that what Erikson is doing is baldly raiding the work of others; if he had put his own stamp on it rather than smearing a thin veneer of throwaway characters over the top it might be a different story.

The amazing Chronicles of Thomas Covenant featured an all-powerful ring, a lava spewing mountain, a dark lord, all the trimmings. Would anyone say it bore more than a passing resemblance to the Lord of the Rings, however? Donaldson made the craft his own, and in doing so created something new.

Similarly you could just as easily point to anything featuring magic in a made up pseudo-medieval setting and say that it was a derivative work based on the Lord of the Rings. Would that be accurate? The criteria matter a lot in these cases. If you took the basic plot and background of the Lord of the Rings and gave the job of writing it individually to Donaldson, Moorcock and Hobb, you'd get three very different books, each qualifying as new.

ixoy wrote: »

You're not impressed with this trickery, but the rest of us are watching the mad dash to see it through.

Thats fair enough - I don't deny that many people seem to like the series, I just can't see the percentage in slogging through a thousand pages of purple prose, tired archetypes, flat characters that won't last long anyway, circular plots and dime store philosophy just to reach a deus ex machina ending.

ixoy wrote: »

Other authors do go off on tangents too - Neal Stephenson is a very good example. Do you find those more educational and relevant (I know I do)?

I've read Cryptonomicon, and I found the meanders to be more a part of the plot in that case.

ixoy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Was the Harry potter reference the ridiculous grenade throwing baddie at the end of the last book?

Yeah that was it. Struck me as particularly pointless as references go. Some of the others did too (such as

The Wizard of Oz

). I think it might be to do with the fact I had seen them, and felt they were done better, in Tad William's Otherland series where the other worlds, and their basis, were an integral plot point.

Characters and plots are deeply intertwined though, you can't really have one without the other.

Don't quite agree with this. For example, I enjoy the works of Neal Asher. His characters aren't very deep but it's the plots and tech I like. I've seen Asher explicitly state that he creates his characters to serve the story and never lets their development get in the way of it. Other authors are focused strongly on character - Robin Hobb's plots are never intriately detailed but she writes wonderfully and has a great gift for characterisation (IMO).

Many of those writers have creative writing skills, a modicum of originality that didn't depend on trying to keep readers bewildered, and have put a tap of work into building and developing their worlds, rather than just blowing them up at every opportunity.

But you yourself thought there were some interesting ideas there. I mean there's far more pedestrian world building in say Terry Goodkind, Terry Brooks, or even David Eddings. I've a feeling that, if Erikson had a proper editor, you'd enjoy it a bit more.
What's your take on Robert Jordan? There's a man who's filled books up with pointless characters that's dragged down the pacing of the plot and put many people off.

I haven't tried Miéville yet, as I'm not really a fan of weird for its own sake. Or to put it another way, life is weird enough!

Well surely if you read fantasy and sci-fi you want a bit of weird! Miéville isn't weird for weird's sake - it's just not how his brain operates. It's very refreshing and the writing is some of the most beautiful I've encountered in the genre. It's one of the few times I'd re-read paragraphs just for the sake of the prose.
Sure his works have won the Arthur C. Clarke, Locus, World Fantasy Awards, Philip K. Dick citations (some of these multiple times) and been nominated for the Hugo and Nebula awards. You can't get that much critical acclaim and not have something worth checking!

if he had put his own stamp on it rather than smearing a thin veneer of throwaway characters over the top it might be a different story.

I think we'll have to disagree on the originality bit!

The amazing Chronicles of Thomas Covenant featured an all-powerful ring, a lava spewing mountain, a dark lord, all the trimmings. Would anyone say it bore more than a passing resemblance to the Lord of the Rings, however? Donaldson made the craft his own, and in doing so created something new.

The reason it was new is he latched on, very well, to the idea of the (very very) reluctant anti-hero. Thomas Covenant is, in many ways unlikeable, but one of the most unique characters in fantasy (or at least was since, to some degree, he's been copied by others afterwards). I mean how can many novels have a leper as their lead!

If you took the basic plot and background of the Lord of the Rings and gave the job of writing it individually to Donaldson, Moorcock and Hobb, you'd get three very different books, each qualifying as new.

Quite - but, in many ways, it's difficult to get away from that European setting or, more precisely, from copying old earth cultures.
What do you make of Feist then? He's got a set formula, stock set of characters, and is highly successful (and I're c still enjoy his work, 20+ books on although I see them a bit more as filler between meatier courses).

I just can't see the percentage in slogging through a thousand pages of purple prose, tired archetypes, flat characters that won't last long anyway, circular plots and dime store philosophy just to reach a deus ex machina ending.

While I can see where you're coming from in each of these areas (and I agree to a point, especially with some of the philosophical ramblings), I think most of us just don't find it enough to take us way from the enjoyment of the story.

Amhran Nua

ixoy wrote: »

Yeah that was it. Struck me as particularly pointless as references go.

The last few books were I'd say a great example of a writer spoiling his magnum opus for fear of his own mortality, to be honest, although I really enjoyed the first five or seven.

ixoy wrote: »

Don't quite agree with this. For example, I enjoy the works of Neal Asher. His characters aren't very deep but it's the plots and tech I like. I've seen Asher explicitly state that he creates his characters to serve the story and never lets their development get in the way of it. Other authors are focused strongly on character - Robin Hobb's plots are never intriately detailed but she writes wonderfully and has a great gift for characterisation (IMO).

Yes but the motivations for and continuations of plots come solely from characters, since they are the only things with any motive power within any story. What you're talking about is the degree to which they are used to move the plot along. If they keep appearing and disappearing, their interactions with the plot and indeed the plot itself is shattered.

ixoy wrote: »

But you yourself thought there were some interesting ideas there. I mean there's far more pedestrian world building in say Terry Goodkind, Terry Brooks, or even David Eddings. I've a feeling that, if Erikson had a proper editor, you'd enjoy it a bit more.
What's your take on Robert Jordan? There's a man who's filled books up with pointless characters that's dragged down the pacing of the plot and put many people off.

You might be on to something with the editor, but they'd need a fair degree of executive control over the work, to the extent that they would be effectively part-authors. Most fantasy writers have a few flashes of sublime creativity in their creations, even when the rest of it might be standard fare; the difference is they carry it off with storytelling skills, which are absent in the Malazan series. On Jordan, the first four books worked well, after that one must simply sniff and tug one's braid.

ixoy wrote: »

Well surely if you read fantasy and sci-fi you want a bit of weird!

There's creative weirdness and destructive weirdness though, one helps open the mind, the other is just an LSD trip.

ixoy wrote: »

Miéville isn't weird for weird's sake - it's just not how his brain operates.

I'll give him a look so.

ixoy wrote: »

The reason it was new is he latched on, very well, to the idea of the (very very) reluctant anti-hero. Thomas Covenant is, in many ways unlikeable, but one of the most unique characters in fantasy (or at least was since, to some degree, he's been copied by others afterwards). I mean how can many novels have a leper as their lead!

The anti-hero had been done before though, many times. What made the series new was the slant Donaldson brought to the genre and the creativity. On the off chance anyone hasn't read this 25 year old series:

While in the broader strokes it bears a similarity to the Lord of the Rings, once you begin reading it you get to completely new levels, the concept of earthlore, the Lords, rich histories, lost wards of knowledge, ur-viles and truly new non human races, and banes buried deep within the earth, searing originality and persuasive underlying logic combined with a keen understanding of his subject matter (I think his father used to work on a leper colony as a doctor) and human interactions in the heart of extremes going beyond the usual pop psychology employed by writers of all stripes, which made all of that more believable. Thats what I'd call creatively weird. Funnily enough the only one who didn't find the whole thing believable was the main character, which serves another subtle point. Donaldson's mastery of nomenclature, as already mentioned, shows through in this series as well, where you have the dark lord archetype called "The Despiser", a telling name in a place so innocent that a single murder causes perturbations in the natural world for miles around.

You get the feeling he could have achieved very much the same effect with a redoing of Cinderella or Hamlet. Hrm, now I must go out and buy the series again. You just can't replace that kind of effort with a character mill.

ixoy wrote: »

What do you make of Feist then? He's got a set formula, stock set of characters, and is highly successful (and I're c still enjoy his work, 20+ books on although I see them a bit more as filler between meatier courses).

I enjoyed them a lot when I read them, although he did a few books for a computer game based on his series which fell pretty flat, as he was writing to a plot he didn't come up with.