[Sinisdar Toste]

i dont know how you can ignore how compelling SE's work is just because of some little enigma's that are avowedly RAFO. i honestly think you're underestimating the sheer scope and imagination of the malazan book of the fallen and because of that approaching it in a limited way. just like the real world there is no limit to the things you don't know about in this world that SE's revealing to us. and it's history is a lot longer and more convoluted than earths.

i once said that a malazan book of the fallen encyclopedia would be like encyclopedia brittanicca on acid, i think it's pretty apt

if MoI doesn't completely turn you around then i don't know what to say.

[Ulrik]

I still cant see why should skipping DG change anything. In many parts its same complex and difficult...and for me is DG probably "easiest" book from first five. IMO is George´s problem in SE´s style. And that wont change... C´est la vie, everyone sometimes crashed into respected author and wasnt able to continue with him.
We all (OK, many of us) know that this special Erikson´s style is same until now and if George has so big problems, its useless to convince him that it will change. Of course, he can try, but this discussion seems pointless. He makes his statements about series after half of second book, which is imho very concentrated and "user friendly" and we are trying to convince him that answers he demand after this tiny piece of whole MBoF will come in MoI? Silanda got whole story in four books...

[Elephant Tamer]

The feeling I get(and this is purely speculation) is something that I find myself doing sometimes: You dislike the events of the book, and over-analyze in an attempt to justify your disappointment. As it is something I do myself, I can't really blame you, but I can say that it will ruin your enjoyment of a most excellent series of books which you would otherwise probably enjoy. One of the things that drew me to the series was the lack of unnecessary explanation, that things would take their time in fitting in. To be fair thought, this happens less and less as the story goes on, mainly because your entrenched in the world itself and the basics of the world itself have been covered. For instance, the thing that seems to keep powerful mages in check? There are a few of explanations for that, ranging from other great powers, to their own power itself. Rarely are the world rules stated clearly, mainly because we see it from the perspective of the people within, and they do not have perfect perspective themselves.
I can say this though, you will definitely like the series more as it goes on, maybe even overcome your first impressions. Maybe Midnight Tides will throw you off a bit, but by that time you should be too deep in anyway. Its worth it.

[Abyss]

At root, i suppose the reader must be able to 'go with it', accepting that from page 1 of the first book they just are not going to have a complete picture of life, the universe, and everything. And this drives readers away. We know if does. The favourable reviews GA has seen are from those fantlit fans who have the mind set that responds well to this series, because, let's face it, if they are writing fantlit reviews then they probably arrived at the series like many of us, at the point where the sheer novelty of nothaving everything fed to you actually yanks you in. This series simply does not do the 'farm boy protagonist' thing, where everything is introduced to the reader in easily processed info-dump.

It's sort of a double-edged sword, isn't it? On the one hand we're saying you can't be over-analytical because many major events are simply not explained in any kind of detail until later in the series, if at all; but on the other hand (you have five more fingers and) we're saying being over-analytical is part of the fun of this series because it leads you to put events in earlier books in a new/different context, adding to enjoyment. Oh Malazfanz, how complex we are...

Consequently, i won't speak in the absolutes of 'it either works for you or it doesn't', but either there is something there to keep your brainz engaged, or there isn't... which goes for anything, i suppose, but this series moreso.

I stand by my earlier suggestion GA - let Duiker join the Chain, read through those events for a bit and see if it works for you. There are other storylines happening (on the reread Fiddler/Crockus/Apsalar became one of my favourite parts, while Felisin/Heboric and co is REALLY frustrating, tho in a good way) but if the Chain of Dogs doesn't draw you in then this series really isn't for you, imnsho.

- Abyss, ...and then of course there's the cold and dead inside part....

[Cobbles]

<FONT color=#000000>

George Awesome, on 26 January 2010 - 06:52 AM, said:

Re: Rune: I just think it sounds good - genre appropriate. Re: imitating history: history wasn't assembled in any way, it's just reports piled on each other, an effect which is easy to imitate and not in itself impressive. Why would the respect accorded students of history trickle down to fiction writers who imitate history's non-existent "style"? To turn it around: why are you impressed by internally inconsistent, contradictory fiction? I'm not being sarcastic: it seems you've found something you like, I just see little evidence of it so far. And if you insist, "SE used to draw paychecks for anthropological work." [/color]

Ok, here's I think a point which is at the heart of matter. I think you're right that emulating reported history as a pile of inconsistent, disconnected pieces is not a hard thing to pull off. Neither is it admirable or impressive per se. On the other hand it's a fairly radical break with modern Western storytelling that I find it quite refreshing. I think a good comparison could be made with Tolkien. Tolkien tried to emulate the style of early European saga in the Icelandic/Nordic/Finnish tradition. Now, if you look at those, there's no character development as we're used to from more modern literature. And what is one of the main point of contention with Tolkien's work: 'his characters are wooden'. Well, that's precisely missing the point. The Silmarillion is not an entirely modern work. You could compare it to a modern painter trying to copy or emulate medieval art. Except, with Tolkien, it's not a straightforward copy, he put in sufficient new elements which elevates his work from emulation/copy to actual, real art. Unfortunately, IMHO, highbrow literary criticism has missed that point for too long. I think a similar case could be made for SE. By emulating actual accounts of history which, as you point out are often disconnected, unreliable and inconsistent, (and due to some other techniques he employs) he just injects sufficient new breath into a genre to make it fresh and interesting (to me at least). So, as others have pointed out, this is part of SE's essential style and I assume it won't change in the course of the series (at least I hope it won't). I agree with you mostly that SE got some of the details wrong which you have pointed out. I think these are genuine (but somewhat minor IMHO) flaws of the book. I think if you stop reading the series because of those, you're probably doing yourself a disservice (unless you're really, really bothered by that). Now, if your main point of contention is the non-linear time, the disconnectedness and the emulation of historic account (which implies utter disregard of the actual reader), then I would agree with others that the series is likely not your thing because I don't expect it to change. Btw. how far have you gotten with the Heboric/Felisin/Baudin storyline? Without spoiling too much, there will be stuff happening along the way, some of which I don't see explained even halfway through MoI but I was assured it's a RAFO. I feel the frustration. On the other hand, even the first third of MoI cleared up quite a bit of GotM. Even the prologue is very informative when you read it carefully. Later we get good explanations for some stuff happening along the Heboric/Felisin/Baudin storyline. MoI has been very satisfying so far in the RAFO department. </FONT>

[RACHEL]

WOW I am constantly amazed by all the people who write in and say I'm just starting, or I'm just halfway through book X and I don't understand, what's going on. Seriously people get a clue. At least finish the damn book before you start bitching that you don't know what's happening and that you don't understand. That is why books have a beginning a middle and an end. If you finish the whole book and are still confused or still haven't had a question answered, then fine, write in and ask, but if your going to complain about things before you have even read the ending then I have no patience for you.

[amphibian]

George Awesome, on 26 January 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

Anybody up for rearranging the text into a fan-edit?

To arrange the text into a truly consistent and coherent chronological order would literally fry the minds of anyone who tried. Timelines are problematic enough (although never a detriment to my enjoyment of the books)

You've been trawling for a reason to continue reading Erikson's work. I'm not sure that's something you can find externally; it seems that either we organically develop it from within or we don't. My advice: Sit back, relax (this is key) and enjoy the book - or don't. Feel free to discuss other stuff in the Inn or the other parts of this forum.

RACHEL, on 26 January 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

WOW I am constantly amazed by all the people who write in and say I'm just starting, or I'm just halfway through book X and I don't understand, what's going on. Seriously people get a clue. At least finish the damn book before you start bitching that you don't know what's happening and that you don't understand. That is why books have a beginning a middle and an end. If you finish the whole book and are still confused or still haven't had a question answered, then fine, write in and ask, but if your going to complain about things before you have even read the ending then I have no patience for you.

To be fair, there is a TON of events, characters and concepts that are not transparent upon the first read (or even the next few - which is why the Malaz world is so good).

Some people have the style of waiting until after a book is finished (usually how I do it myself) before putting together the list of questions and comments. Others like to have them addressed as they pop up. There's room for both here.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 26 January 2010 - 05:47 PM

[Abyss]

Good point Amphi. Me, I would never jump online and start hunting for answers before i actually finished the book, but some people need the clarity i suppose.

That said it's a different thing for people who are struggling with the book and looking for reason to keep reading. We do get both in the forum.

On a certain level, i'm tempted to just spoilers out... "Look, in about six chapters Coltaine is going to single-handedly end the rebellion using only a crow-leg toothpick and his warren of Elder Win and it's going to be the best thing you have ever read since ever. Also, Fiddler, Apsalar and Crokus meet up with the members of KISS and a jam-session breaks out, while Kalam kicks back with a beer and explains EVERYTHING. Yes... EVERYTHING. And Pearl and Lostara make wild passionate desert monkey sex which is possibly the most erotic thing ever written since the Kama Sutra, so just shut up and keep reading."... but fundamentally we're talking about SE's style more than the actual events in the book.

- Abyss, ....yes, "wild passionate desert monkey sex"... and it's hugely significant in later books but it only makes sense on the re-read...

[Cobbles]

amphibian, on 26 January 2010 - 05:46 PM, said:

Some people have the style of waiting until after a book is finished (usually how I do it myself) before putting together the list of questions and comments. Others like to have them addressed as they pop up. There's room for both here.

As I understand it George is not out for answers, he only wants an assurance that answers are eventually given. Now, I think it is fair to say that questions from GotM will mostly NOT be answered in DG. You'd have to wait until MoI. I see GotM and DG as two different exposition books. Not very much overlap between the two, both likely raising much more questions than answering them. MoI is much more satisfying in the answer department (and I'm only 2/3rds through it). Don't know about book 4 and onwards.

[Ulrik]

Its honest to say that some questions form DG will not be answered until BH and later.

[George Awesome]

Sinisdar Toste, on 26 January 2010 - 09:19 AM, said:

i dont know how you can ignore how compelling SE's work is just because of some little enigma's that are avowedly RAFO.

My nitpicks aren't harming my experience: they are my experience.

The outcome of my last thread kind of talked me into starting this book: I expected "the good stuff" to start, and plowed into the book - like a car into a swamp: it seems I was expecting things that aren't here.

[amphibian]

Cobbles, on 26 January 2010 - 06:21 PM, said:

As I understand it George is not out for answers, he only wants an assurance that answers are eventually given. Now, I think it is fair to say that questions from GotM will mostly NOT be answered in DG. You'd have to wait until MoI. I see GotM and DG as two different exposition books. Not very much overlap between the two, both likely raising much more questions than answering them. MoI is much more satisfying in the answer department (and I'm only 2/3rds through it). Don't know about book 4 and onwards.

You're mostly right.

However, I said "addressed" - not "answered". There are questions to which the answers are given, implied, guesswork, wild theories and/or completely unknown. However, the vast majority of the questions are very interesting and thought-provoking. This is what keeps me going on the periodic re-reads.

[George Awesome]

Cobbles, on 26 January 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:

Ok, here's I think a point which is at the heart of matter. I think you're right that emulating reported history as a pile of inconsistent, disconnected pieces is not a hard thing to pull off. Neither is it admirable or impressive per se. On the other hand it's a fairly radical break with modern Western storytelling that I find it quite refreshing.

Well, fair enough. You ever try Infinite Jest? Now there's some radical stuff, and you'll be able to laugh at all the people complaining about the length on the amazon page.

Cobbles, on 26 January 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:

Tolkien tried to emulate the style of early European saga in the Icelandic/Nordic/Finnish tradition. (...) The Silmarillion is not an entirely modern work. You could compare it to a modern painter trying to copy or emulate medieval art. Except, with Tolkien, it's not a straightforward copy, he put in sufficient new elements which elevates his work from emulation/copy to actual, real art. Unfortunately, IMHO, highbrow literary criticism has missed that point for too long.

I think a similar case could be made for SE. By emulating actual accounts of history which, as you point out are often disconnected, unreliable and inconsistent, (and due to some other techniques he employs) he just injects sufficient new breath into a genre to make it fresh and interesting (to me at least).

That's an interesting point about Tolkien - I was wondering what he did that made him so imitated.

About the genre-revival: someone once speculated that uber-experimental books get praised by critics because those critics have to read so many books, they get sick of the normal trappings that readers look for in books, and appreciate the novelty for its own sake: maybe SE provides that for jaded fantasy readers? Makes elves and dragons fresh again, at the risk of baffling/putting off people who weren't so sick of elves and dragons?

This post has been edited by George Awesome: 26 January 2010 - 08:36 PM

[George Awesome]

amphibian, on 26 January 2010 - 05:46 PM, said:

George Awesome, on 26 January 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

Anybody up for rearranging the text into a fan-edit?

To arrange the text into a truly consistent and coherent chronological order would literally fry the minds of anyone who tried.

Yeah, not chronological order: I misspoke. Just into an order where you don't have to reread past books to make sense of them. Since little makes sense to me yet it's tough to give an example - but let's say there's a wand that shoots fireballs. I don't need to read about the first guy, historically, to use one - I just need to know *that it shoots fireballs*: then I can read about people using wands like that in any chronological order. I just want to know WTF is going on. I don't care what order it happens in.I guess I'm impressed by people's apparent willingness to reread past books to get a new perspective, but really, I'd sooner read an all-new book. I don't think I've ever read a book I'd want to read again.

Abyss, on 26 January 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

This series simply does not do the 'farm boy protagonist' thing, where everything is introduced to the reader in easily processed info-dump.

I'm not really coming to this book with expectations of fantasy convention: I read Mistborn right before, yes, but before that was a fantasy-less stretch of almost a decade (other than Terry Pratchett), during which time I was into DFW (as mentioned), Jeff Lindsay, Thomas Harris ... I don't know, just "regular" books. Maybe some SF. The only other book I've read that makes remotely similar demands of patience is David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest." I put it down for a while, then picked it up again because I was so interested in the point of view on life it offered, new ways of describing character reactions, and experimental style.

[George Awesome]

RACHEL, on 26 January 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

Seriously people get a clue (...) if your going to complain about things before you have even read the ending then I have no patience for you.

So, you're okay with reading multiple volumes, sometimes more than once, to get answers that may never come, but this thread exhausts you?

[George Awesome]

Abyss, on 26 January 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

I stand by my earlier suggestion GA - let Duiker join the Chain, read through those events for a bit and see if it works for you. There are other storylines happening (on the reread Fiddler/Crockus/Apsalar became one of my favourite parts, while Felisin/Heboric and co is REALLY frustrating, tho in a good way) but if the Chain of Dogs doesn't draw you in then this series really isn't for you, imnsho.

That's still my plan, yeah, thanks.

[George Awesome]

Abyss, on 26 January 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

That said it's a different thing for people who are struggling with the book and looking for reason to keep reading.

Cobbles, on 26 January 2010 - 06:21 PM, said:

As I understand it George is not out for answers, he only wants an assurance that answers are eventually given.

Thanks, that sums it up about right.

[Epiph]

Personally, I find Deadhouse Gates the hardest read of the Malazan books, even on reread. I may have had more trouble with the first 50 pages of GotM, and I may have been less engaged by Midnight Tides on my first read-through, but DhG was hard for me on my first read because I was bewildered by the Path of Hands and Tremelor and Felisin's story was emotionally hard to read, and it was torturous on my second because I knew what was coming (...in a good way, if that makes sense). I also found it stylistically harder. I remember one particular passage describing Pust's abode that I had to read over several times because the description was so weird (as an aside, I think this might be why people often complain about Erikson's lack description: it may be there, but it's so dense, it can slip right past you if you're not paying attention).

I would say that comparing Erikson to Wallace is pretty right on, because I think Erikson is not aspiring to write another fantasy book, he is aspiring to write literature that happens o be fantasy. His level efficacy is up for debate. I, personally, think he comes close, but that the scope of the entire series of the MBotF hampers this aspiration.

As for the gruesomeness, I agree with you, and, while I think it's necessary to show the brutality of the Whirlwind, I think other instances of it elsewhere in the series are maybe a little much. This doesn't really get better, for the record.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of warren magic. Hell, I'm not totally sure I understand it, but I like that Erikson's system of magic is not a cut and dry system of rules. It's magic, so it lacks a certain amount of logic. Someone has already mentioned that this isn't Baldur's Gate--mages are relatively rare, and the way magic works in the Malazan world lends itself more to the scholastic or, in rarer instances, power minded than the mercantile-minded, and many of those who were merchants were culled by the Empire, as mentioned in the prologue of Gardens of the Moon.

It's been well addressed, but just because there actually are "supernatural" things happening in the Malazan world doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be called "supernatural". These are not normal, everyday events. I do, however, see your point that Erikson sometimes doesn't do a fantastic job achieving what he sets out to do (your example of Felisin's Stockholm Syndrome is a good one). I would argue that this gets better as we become more familiar with the Malazan world and as Erikson grows as a writer, respectively.

The pay off is there at the end, which is amazing. I'd say by the end of Deadhouse Gates, you have a basic understanding of the Malazan world, so things like Soletaken and D'ivers and Azath don't blindside you. Memories of Ice was like a walk in the park and remains one of my absolute favorites. This is not to say that basic plot points are answered. Cobbles referenced something weird that happens to Felison, Heboric, and Baudin, and if it's what I think it is, we're still not totally clear on what happened, one book shy of the end of the series. But it's still an important plot point. Not to mention that there are whole story lines that Erikson has abandoned, to be picked up by ICE.

As for your specific complaints:
RE Pale and the Moranth: they're humans in insectoid armor. They allied with the Malazans on a promise that they could take revenge on Pale. The brutal Malazan Empire, not wanting to lose a valuable ally and being masters of spin, held up their end of the bargain.
RE Kalam just wandering past Membra: Fiddler describes how Kalam has been gone a lot, gathering info and stuff. I would assume he was figuring out how to get the book so he could get safe passage through Raraku. It was not random, it was planned.
RE Whirlwind Goddess/Sha'ik: her plan to conduct the starting ceremony on the open play with just two fighty-guys at her side would have worked if the chick Red Blade, Lostara Yil, wasn't as talented as she is. Lostara was the one that was able to keep tracking Kalam (whose past experiences led him to believe that a native of Seven Cities isn't going to be followed by unsavory elements, and so didn't try to hide himself--certainly a mistake, but one that anyone with an overabundance of confidence could make), not the other Red Blades, and some of her badassness is explained in...maybe House of Chains, definitely Bonehunters.
RE the bodyguards: Unless the Red Blades killed the guards before Sha'ik, who was their most important target, I highly doubt they would have succeeded, as the first quarter of House of Chains will illuminate. And yes, there is more to the apparent ease with which it occurred that will become clear later in this book.
RE the bloodflies: I don't think it's common for bloodflies to swarm. My understanding was that they were swarming because of all the fires and stuff that were happening because of the Rebellion, which would explain why it happened so conveniently on that particular night. Maybe I misread it, though.

[Cobbles]

Epiph, on 26 January 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

Personally, I find Deadhouse Gates the hardest read of the Malazan books, even on reread. I may have had more trouble with the first 50 pages of GotM, and I may have been less engaged by Midnight Tides on my first read-through, but DhG was hard for me on my first read because I was bewildered by the Path of Hands and Tremelor and Felisin's story was emotionally hard to read, and it was torturous on my second because I knew what was coming (...in a good way, if that makes sense). I also found it stylistically harder. I remember one particular passage describing Pust's abode that I had to read over several times because the description was so weird (as an aside, I think this might be why people often complain about Erikson's lack description: it may be there, but it's so dense, it can slip right past you if you're not paying attention).

I would say that comparing Erikson to Wallace is pretty right on, because I think Erikson is not aspiring to write another fantasy book, he is aspiring to write literature that happens o be fantasy. His level efficacy is up for debate. I, personally, think he comes close, but that the scope of the entire series of the MBotF hampers this aspiration.

As for the gruesomeness, I agree with you, and, while I think it's necessary to show the brutality of the Whirlwind, I think other instances of it elsewhere in the series are maybe a little much. This doesn't really get better, for the record.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of warren magic. Hell, I'm not totally sure I understand it, but I like that Erikson's system of magic is not a cut and dry system of rules. It's magic, so it lacks a certain amount of logic. Someone has already mentioned that this isn't Baldur's Gate--mages are relatively rare, and the way magic works in the Malazan world lends itself more to the scholastic or, in rarer instances, power minded than the mercantile-minded, and many of those who were merchants were culled by the Empire, as mentioned in the prologue of Gardens of the Moon.

It's been well addressed, but just because there actually are "supernatural" things happening in the Malazan world doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be called "supernatural". These are not normal, everyday events. I do, however, see your point that Erikson sometimes doesn't do a fantastic job achieving what he sets out to do (your example of Felisin's Stockholm Syndrome is a good one). I would argue that this gets better as we become more familiar with the Malazan world and as Erikson grows as a writer, respectively.

The pay off is there at the end, which is amazing. I'd say by the end of Deadhouse Gates, you have a basic understanding of the Malazan world, so things like Soletaken and D'ivers and Azath don't blindside you. Memories of Ice was like a walk in the park and remains one of my absolute favorites. This is not to say that basic plot points are answered. Cobbles referenced something weird that happens to Felison, Heboric, and Baudin, and if it's what I think it is, we're still not totally clear on what happened, one book shy of the end of the series. But it's still an important plot point. Not to mention that there are whole story lines that Erikson has abandoned, to be picked up by ICE.

As for your specific complaints:
RE Pale and the Moranth: they're humans in insectoid armor. They allied with the Malazans on a promise that they could take revenge on Pale. The brutal Malazan Empire, not wanting to lose a valuable ally and being masters of spin, held up their end of the bargain.
RE Kalam just wandering past Membra: Fiddler describes how Kalam has been gone a lot, gathering info and stuff. I would assume he was figuring out how to get the book so he could get safe passage through Raraku. It was not random, it was planned.
RE Whirlwind Goddess/Sha'ik: her plan to conduct the starting ceremony on the open play with just two fighty-guys at her side would have worked if the chick Red Blade, Lostara Yil, wasn't as talented as she is. Lostara was the one that was able to keep tracking Kalam (whose past experiences led him to believe that a native of Seven Cities isn't going to be followed by unsavory elements, and so didn't try to hide himself--certainly a mistake, but one that anyone with an overabundance of confidence could make), not the other Red Blades, and some of her badassness is explained in...maybe House of Chains, definitely Bonehunters.
RE the bodyguards: Unless the Red Blades killed the guards before Sha'ik, who was their most important target, I highly doubt they would have succeeded, as the first quarter of House of Chains will illuminate. And yes, there is more to the apparent ease with which it occurred that will become clear later in this book.
RE the bloodflies: I don't think it's common for bloodflies to swarm. My understanding was that they were swarming because of all the fires and stuff that were happening because of the Rebellion, which would explain why it happened so conveniently on that particular night. Maybe I misread it, though.

I seem to remember that Mebra told Kalam to do a certain ritual each evening. Wasn't it that ritual which helped Lostara track him in the first place?

The thing I referred to (I try to be as obscure as possible to not spoil anything) was the object sticking out of the sand and the part where they journeyed over a body of water.

[HoosierDaddy]

Sorry. You have admitted you want it spoon-fed if you can have it that way. Let's just be blunt:

You aren't going to like this series. It only gets WORSE from DG with plot inter-weavings, unexplained mysteries, extreme intricacies (with required re-readings to pick up on your own, and yes we're damned proud to love a series that takes a hell of a lot of thought) and a time-line that is fubarred. If you can't disassociate your problems with the books from your enjoyment this early in the series, it will never happen.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 27 January 2010 - 01:47 AM