Help
Quote
I've been reading Malazan for almost a year now. The only break I took was to read the First Law Trilogy when I felt like I was starting to get burned out about halfway through book 4 of Malazan. I picked the book up again and finished it and am now about 1/3 of the way through book 7.
The experience this series has provided nothing short of phenominal. It easily ranks as one of the best series I have ever read. Still, as I am reading it I see many reasons why people will just as easily dislike it.
Firstly, the books are extremely cerebral. Reading one page of a Malazan book and comprehending it is much more difficult than reading a page of a Wheel of Time book or nearly any other series I've read. It's not a matter of poor writing but more a matter of style, vocabulary, and subtleties. Erikson wants to make you work to understand exactly what is happening, and for me that makes it that much more of a payoff. This is not me trying to be egotistical; I am just stating that Erikson will make you work to comprehend his work. It’s like comparing watching Independence Day to watching Momento. Both are fun films, in my opinion, but the satisfaction you get from watching them come from totally different sources.
Next off, Erikson takes a different approach to characterization than I’m used to. He doesn’t spend too much time in any single characters head in that he doesn’t describe what they are thinking. You learn about the characters more from their actions and because of this it takes a lot longer to really grow to know a character. This is made even more difficult by the sheer number of characters he has. This is actually one fault I have with him which is he names every single character in the series. Often it would be much easier to comprehend a scene if he would leave some of the characters unnamed and refer to them as “the bodyguard” or “the moneylender” instead of assigning each a unique name. That said, the bonus of sculpting his characters in this way is he is able to make much more happen in 1000 pages than most other authors. Some people may like this style, some won’t. Personally I find it a cool change from the norm but I’d hate it if every book did this.
The sorcery in the books also has been a very polarizing topic. After 6000 pages or so I can comfortably say that the magic system feels very structured, it’s only that the structure of the system is only entirely known to Erikson. He likes to use the mystery of it to add to the mystical aspects of the books. For people who have complained that the magic in the book is too unstructured after the first couple of books, don’t fret, it’s not.
The last thing I’d like to add is the comedic aspect of his book. Erikson writes some of the best comical characters I’ve come across. So if you ever decide to read this series remember that while it is a Tragedy, Erikson is great at providing comic relief.
So thats my brief general analysis on Erikson's writing.
The experience this series has provided nothing short of phenominal. It easily ranks as one of the best series I have ever read. Still, as I am reading it I see many reasons why people will just as easily dislike it.
Firstly, the books are extremely cerebral. Reading one page of a Malazan book and comprehending it is much more difficult than reading a page of a Wheel of Time book or nearly any other series I've read. It's not a matter of poor writing but more a matter of style, vocabulary, and subtleties. Erikson wants to make you work to understand exactly what is happening, and for me that makes it that much more of a payoff. This is not me trying to be egotistical; I am just stating that Erikson will make you work to comprehend his work. It’s like comparing watching Independence Day to watching Momento. Both are fun films, in my opinion, but the satisfaction you get from watching them come from totally different sources.
Next off, Erikson takes a different approach to characterization than I’m used to. He doesn’t spend too much time in any single characters head in that he doesn’t describe what they are thinking. You learn about the characters more from their actions and because of this it takes a lot longer to really grow to know a character. This is made even more difficult by the sheer number of characters he has. This is actually one fault I have with him which is he names every single character in the series. Often it would be much easier to comprehend a scene if he would leave some of the characters unnamed and refer to them as “the bodyguard” or “the moneylender” instead of assigning each a unique name. That said, the bonus of sculpting his characters in this way is he is able to make much more happen in 1000 pages than most other authors. Some people may like this style, some won’t. Personally I find it a cool change from the norm but I’d hate it if every book did this.
The sorcery in the books also has been a very polarizing topic. After 6000 pages or so I can comfortably say that the magic system feels very structured, it’s only that the structure of the system is only entirely known to Erikson. He likes to use the mystery of it to add to the mystical aspects of the books. For people who have complained that the magic in the book is too unstructured after the first couple of books, don’t fret, it’s not.
The last thing I’d like to add is the comedic aspect of his book. Erikson writes some of the best comical characters I’ve come across. So if you ever decide to read this series remember that while it is a Tragedy, Erikson is great at providing comic relief.
So thats my brief general analysis on Erikson's writing.
