Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Steven Erikson Malazan series
Options
Comments
-
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.Amhran Nua wrote: »In King's case these are different books, different stories, different characters.
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!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 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.That article you linked to gives many good examples, LeGuin's Earthsea books, Eddings, Hobb, even Pratchett.
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).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?).
Might check it out - I've seen Elric mentioned enough elsewhere to be curious.If you wanted a standalone Moorcock book to get you going, I'd highly recommend "The Warhound and the World's Pain".
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.If you look a bit closer though, all he's done is just take the standard tropes and turned them on their heads.
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...One of the greatest and most enduring fantasy classics of all time, the Lord of the Rings, was written in the 1940s!
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).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?
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.
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.Also, I have to admit to a certain amount of curiosity as to the overall point you are trying to make here.
As to the fantasy tropes mentioned - it'd be interesting to see how many you could apply to any fantasy series picked at random.0 -
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.Up to a point though - they're ultimately all tied together in the Dark Tower series.
I rather doubt it, since most of them end up dead in short order.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!
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.Well Hobb's books for example are generally of the one race, so they don't fit too closely with the earlier discussion.
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.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.
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.Might check it out - I've seen Elric mentioned enough elsewhere to be curious.
Er, you're blaming stereotypes of many other writers in order to excuse that Erikson couldn't make up his own original work?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.
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.A case could be made that Tolkein was a great world builder but not always adept at writing the story itself
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.Well with China Miéville yes - he's created the "new weird" genre, an interesting mix of steam-punk, fantasy, and just plain weird.
So, not so much then.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.
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.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.
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.As to the fantasy tropes mentioned - it'd be interesting to see how many you could apply to any fantasy series picked at random.0 -
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?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.
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.I rather doubt it, since most of them end up dead in short order.
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.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.
Fair enough. I also need to check out Guy Gavriel Kay while I'm at.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.
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!Er, you're blaming stereotypes of many other writers in order to excuse that Erikson couldn't make up his own original work?
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.despite the shortcomings of the writing style, Tolkien is still around and still compelling.
Oh Victorian steampunk isn't new - just Miéville managed to really add his own stamp to it. Have you tried them?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.
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'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.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.
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)?Half the Malazan books may as well be blogs, with the amount of padding they have.0 -
In the context of the larger story, I'd say its closer to homage, since he's not leaning on them too much.He also rifes on other literary sources, such as 'The Wizard of Oz' and Harry Potter. Is it homage or closer to plagarism?Was the Harry potter reference the ridiculous grenade throwing baddie at the end of the last book?
Characters and plots are deeply intertwined though, you can't really have one without the other.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.
I'm always on the lookout for new books, I'll take a gander at that.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.
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.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?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.
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.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?
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.
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.You're not impressed with this trickery, but the rest of us are watching the mad dash to see it through.
I've read Cryptonomicon, and I found the meanders to be more a part of the plot in that case.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)?0 -
Yeah that was it. Struck me as particularly pointless as references go. Some of the others did too (such asAmhran Nua wrote: »Was the Harry potter reference the ridiculous grenade throwing baddie at the end of the last book?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.
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).Characters and plots are deeply intertwined though, you can't really have one without the other.
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.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.
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.
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.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!
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!
I think we'll have to disagree on the originality bit!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 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 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.
Quite - but, in many ways, it's difficult to get away from that European setting or, more precisely, from copying old earth cultures.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.
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).
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.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.Yeah that was it. Struck me as particularly pointless as references go.
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.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).
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.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.
There's creative weirdness and destructive weirdness though, one helps open the mind, the other is just an LSD trip.Well surely if you read fantasy and sci-fi you want a bit of weird!
I'll give him a look so.Miéville isn't weird for weird's sake - it's just not how his brain operates.
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: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!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.
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.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).0
Advertisement