[Defiance]

Ulysses, on 16 April 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

this is exactly why you don't begin book five with two groups of fairly unknown characters

I would disagree. I think it's something that's largely based on preference. Would I want every series I read to be structured in this manner? Absolutely not. However, in the end I think most would agree that it works out wonderfully and just shows how much depth there is to Erikson's world. One problem I have with a lot of epic fantasy - or even fantasy in general - is that it seems like no one other than the main characters is ever actually doing anything. Midnight Tides overturns this in a glorious way; not only is stuff going on on the other side of the world, the stuff that is going on there ends up being vitally important and is also related to what's happened in the previous books in startling and fun ways.

I will agree that it's disorienting at first, but just like I encourage people to stick with Gardens of the Moon, I encourage people to stick with this book as well. Most people find that once they cast aside their expectations and preconceived notions about how a book series should be structured, Midnight Tides is a wonderful addition to the series.

This approach won't work for everyone, and that's okay. I won't try to make that silly highbrow argument that often comes into play ("oh, you just don't like it because you don't understand it, you're not intelligent enough, etc. etc."); we all have our preferences, and while it's not something I can truly comprehend Erikson doesn't appeal to everyone. I do hope that you stick with things and end up enjoying where the series goes.

[Sinisdar Toste]

septimus, on 07 December 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Being cuckolded is fine. As long as I can cuckold without the cuckolded cuckolding me in turn....

It makes no sense; it's nonsense. Well it's sensical in that it's non-contradictory and logical. Someone who doesn't mind being cuckolded could mind being cuckolded by someone he's cuckolded. There's no contradiction in that statement. There are insaner things in heaven and earth after all. Thus with a twazzle - which is idiomatic onomatopoeia or an onomatopoeic idiom indicating the sound of a pronation one makes at the end of a magical illusion if such an action were to have a sound - I sliver into the river and out of the trap with Kruppian ease.

this guy. this guy right here. Kruppian ease. i love it.

[Zuzu Bolin]

I've just started MT and it's slower going than the other four I've read but that's to be expected. Not getting the not caring about the characters bit at all. I was devastated at the end of MoI and whilst Erikson doesn't draw a character as perfectly as King used to or Martin still does on occasion I care deeply about Quick Ben and Fiddler.

[sukitiki]

Keep reading! Midnight Tides aside from the prologue was quite boring to me but it gets a lot better. Honestly, the second half of the book was amazing and it ended up being one of my favorites. The philosophical rants, subtle messages, tehol and bugg conversations, and blatant comparisons to our society and our values were quite thought provoking.

[Kaamos]

Noooooo!!! Do not cease! I harbored similar-ish qualms at the beginning, with the difference that I had read Bonehunters first. Trull develops into an astonishing character (no to mention Rhulad, in his tragic, pitiable way), and, what before this felt like a random evil race of gray whatsits, acquired a living face. MT's now my favorite tome of the lot. (Also greatly enjoyed the satire about our own society mentioned above.)

Warning: depending on your sense of humor, don't eat or drink while stomping through certain Bugg & Tehol scenes. Something may end up up one's nose, or, based on the fluidity of said substance, gush out.

[birthSqueeze]

I thought Midnight Tides was the easiest book in the series to read because there are less characters to keep track of. Thus, it is the most enjoyable. MT was also the first book in the series to have really good characterization and character development.

[lastname]

birthSqueeze, on 10 July 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

I thought Midnight Tides was the easiest book in the series to read because there are less characters to keep track of. Thus, it is the most enjoyable. MT was also the first book in the series to have really good characterization and character development.

I will respectfully disagree with the last statement. There are plenty of fantastic characters scattered through the first four books. I also think SE gave characters like Felisin and Karsa lots of time and screen space to evolve and develop.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

birthSqueeze, on 10 July 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

I thought Midnight Tides was the easiest book in the series to read because there are less characters to keep track of. Thus, it is the most enjoyable. MT was also the first book in the series to have really good characterization and character development.

Homie, what are you smokin'?

Sorry/Apsalar, Crokus/Cutter, Anomander Rake, Ganoes Paran, all these characters had some interesting development. Toc and Tool. Man I could go on forever.

[birthSqueeze]

One misconception that a lot of Malazan fans have about this series is that Steven Erickson is a great character writer. Throughout the Malazan series I"ve found it pretty difficult to distinguish one character from another, especially in the early books. Some of his characters are awesome such as Bottle, and a number of other characters just mentioned, but a lot of his characters, even some of the main ones have very bland voices such as Kalam, Quick Ben, Paran, and Tattersail. The price for having so many characters is a lot of underdevelopment. I'm fine with this. Very few writers would be able to juggle all those characters the way he does so adeptly. I hate comparing completely different writers, but if you compare Erickson's character development to George Martin's and Robin Hobb's then it is obvious he could improve in that area.

[lastname]

birthSqueeze, on 12 July 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

One misconception that a lot of Malazan fans have about this series is that Steven Erickson is a great character writer. Throughout the Malazan series I"ve found it pretty difficult to distinguish one character from another, especially in the early books. Some of his characters are awesome such as Bottle, and a number of other characters just mentioned, but a lot of his characters, even some of the main ones have very bland voices such as Kalam, Quick Ben, Paran, and Tattersail. The price for having so many characters is a lot of underdevelopment. I'm fine with this. Very few writers would be able to juggle all those characters the way he does so adeptly. I hate comparing completely different writers, but if you compare Erickson's character development to George Martin's and Robin Hobb's then it is obvious he could improve in that area.

One misconception that a lot of bloggers have is that when people don't share their opinions, those other people are obviously making a mistake or are under a misconception.

[Vengeance]

lastname, on 10 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

birthSqueeze, on 10 July 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

I thought Midnight Tides was the easiest book in the series to read because there are less characters to keep track of. Thus, it is the most enjoyable. MT was also the first book in the series to have really good characterization and character development.

I will respectfully disagree with the last statement. There are plenty of fantastic characters scattered through the first four books. I also think SE gave characters like Felisin and Karsa lots of time and screen space to evolve and develop.

Karsa only had what the first 300 pages of one entire book as development for his character. Hardly any space at all.

[birthSqueeze]

lastname, on 16 July 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

birthSqueeze, on 12 July 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

One misconception that a lot of Malazan fans have about this series is that Steven Erickson is a great character writer. Throughout the Malazan series I"ve found it pretty difficult to distinguish one character from another, especially in the early books. Some of his characters are awesome such as Bottle, and a number of other characters just mentioned, but a lot of his characters, even some of the main ones have very bland voices such as Kalam, Quick Ben, Paran, and Tattersail. The price for having so many characters is a lot of underdevelopment. I'm fine with this. Very few writers would be able to juggle all those characters the way he does so adeptly. I hate comparing completely different writers, but if you compare Erickson's character development to George Martin's and Robin Hobb's then it is obvious he could improve in that area.

One misconception that a lot of bloggers have is that when people don't share their opinions, those other people are obviously making a mistake or are under a misconception.

I've read a lot of opinions that people have shared about this series that I disagree with. My opinion is that Steven Erickson's characterization continued to get better and better with each book up until Midnight Tides which is where it peaked. There certainly is good characterization in his early books except for Gardens of the Moon. All of the characters sounded the same and seemed very underdeveloped in Gardens, but he vastly improves after that. I also want to make it clear that Malazan is my favorite series and any slight criticism given is made with sound judgment and forethought. A number of negative reviews I've read have greatly offended me. Some of the negative Amazon reviews are laughable. When someone really doesn't like a book they tend to not acknowledge any strengths where as the opposite is true when someone really loves a book. On a side note I think Erickson spent way too much time On Karsa; the first section of House of Chains was really boring in my opinion.

[Puck]

I really want to disagree but I honestly don't know how to go about it without reapeating what others have said before. I'm honestly tired of reading all the comparisons to Martin and I'd be the first to admit that SE has his weak points, but characterization is not one of those. Personally, I have no problem distiguishing even between the various marines and have never had them - not even in GotM, which is, admittedly, weaker in this area than the other books.

This post has been edited by Puck: 17 July 2013 - 02:08 PM

[birthSqueeze]

Puck, on 17 July 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I really want to disagree but I honestly don't know how to go about it without reapeating what others have said before. I'm honestly tired of reading all the comparisons to Martin and I'd be the first to admit that SE has his weak points, but characterization is not one of those. Personally, I have no problem distiguishing even between the various marines and have never had them - not even in GotM, which is, admittedly, weaker in this area than the other books.

I can't stand the George Martin comparisons either. Those writers literally have nothing in common except that they both write large, complex, epic fantasy novels with multiple POV's, and they're both very gritty. Stylistically they are almost opposites. I was just giving an example. I think Erickson's biggest weakness is that he tends to preach to the reader for pages and pages about topics that aren't that relevant to the story. However, some of the topic he preaches about are very relevant to the themes of his novels. So, yeah, it's really easy to acknowledge that he is very pretentious. I never explicitly said characterization was his weakest point. He has so many strong points that's it's very difficult to even tell. Theme, plot, and prose are his biggest strengths in my opinion. Characterization isn't his strongest point, but he certainly is a very good character writer. I had some trouble distinguishing some of the characters in Deadhouse gates, but after that I didn't have much trouble.

[Kanese S's]

Puck, on 17 July 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I really want to disagree but I honestly don't know how to go about it without reapeating what others have said before. I'm honestly tired of reading all the comparisons to Martin and I'd be the first to admit that SE has his weak points, but characterization is not one of those. Personally, I have no problem distiguishing even between the various marines and have never had them - not even in GotM, which is, admittedly, weaker in this area than the other books.

Yeah, I never got the character confusion that other people seem to have. Never happened for me. Not with the various soldier characters, not with similarly named characters, which I don't see as a failing at all (let's all ask ourselves how many people we know in real life who have the same or similar names...), never.

[Kanese S's]

birthSqueeze, on 17 July 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

lastname, on 16 July 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

birthSqueeze, on 12 July 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

One misconception that a lot of Malazan fans have about this series is that Steven Erickson is a great character writer. Throughout the Malazan series I"ve found it pretty difficult to distinguish one character from another, especially in the early books. Some of his characters are awesome such as Bottle, and a number of other characters just mentioned, but a lot of his characters, even some of the main ones have very bland voices such as Kalam, Quick Ben, Paran, and Tattersail. The price for having so many characters is a lot of underdevelopment. I'm fine with this. Very few writers would be able to juggle all those characters the way he does so adeptly. I hate comparing completely different writers, but if you compare Erickson's character development to George Martin's and Robin Hobb's then it is obvious he could improve in that area.

One misconception that a lot of bloggers have is that when people don't share their opinions, those other people are obviously making a mistake or are under a misconception.

I've read a lot of opinions that people have shared about this series that I disagree with. My opinion is that Steven Erickson's characterization continued to get better and better with each book up until Midnight Tides which is where it peaked. There certainly is good characterization in his early books except for Gardens of the Moon. All of the characters sounded the same and seemed very underdeveloped in Gardens, but he vastly improves after that. I also want to make it clear that Malazan is my favorite series and any slight criticism given is made with sound judgment and forethought. A number of negative reviews I've read have greatly offended me. Some of the negative Amazon reviews are laughable. When someone really doesn't like a book they tend to not acknowledge any strengths where as the opposite is true when someone really loves a book. On a side note I think Erickson spent way too much time On Karsa; the first section of House of Chains was really boring in my opinion.

I didn't find the first section of House of Chains boring. I did find it a bit difficult to read at times, but that wasn't because it was boring; it was because Karsa was an asshole.

[Vaddon Ra]

althanis, on 07 February 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

A little background, I love reading, I've read Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire series, LoTR, started off A Wheel of Time and never finished it (like so many others), read quite a few Stephen King, Carlos Ruiz Zafon, China Mieville, Joe Abercrombie, the Long Price Quartet, etc.

I started this series in December, and have been promptly finishing each book after a calendar month, to the day. At first I enjoyed it, even though it was confusing, I knew it had that reputation, and I consider myself a pretty intelligent guy that doesn't need to be spoonfed.

The first book was good, I'd say not great, the 2nd and 3rd were also pretty good and entertaining. I slogged through the 4th book, found it to be a bit of a chore. The problem I've found is that I don't really care about anyone in this book. In fact, if they all died and we started over with new characters, I wouldn't really care. Sure, there are lots of questions I'd like answered, but there are so many characters, so many warrens, it's really hard to keep track.

I find that whenever the POV switches back to a character, I have to check the Malazan Wiki to remind myself who this person is. I posted a comment on Pat's fantasy hotlist over here:
http://www.blogger.c...038802605831272 in effect saying what I'm saying here, and a guy said:

Quote

"Somewhere along the way, I don't even realize when, whenever I'd come across a character who I didn't remember, I just didn't bother check it. I was just reading so I could finish the story."

I almost never do anything else. If I have forgotten the character, he'll come back automatically along the way in his actions, descriptions and other references. I never got this approach "I have to keep everything in mind, all at once", anyway. It's what turns people away from the Silmarillion as well. I don't see why anyone bothers.
But while I don't see the problem from a practical point of view, I do see it from wanting to get some resolution.

That's the strangest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If you don't care to immediately put someone into perspective, then how can you even make sense of their actions until you know who they are? It's like watching a movie where everyone's wearing the same mask - sure, eventually you'll figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys, but it doesn't make for good entertainment does it?

My question is this really, if I've rated the books say, 3.75 so far, should I continue reading? Does it get better, more fulfilling and rewarding? Are things explained, does it come to a good conclusion?

Honestly, as sad as it may be for we malazan lovers, if your problem is that you don't really care about the characters, or indeed that due to being many you haven't found yourself attached to them, I would say its definitely not going to get better im afraid. The later books do have some incredible moments which I wont spoil for you, moments that are touching, heart breaking, exciting and funny etc, but most of that is down to me loving characters and having either a heart felt connection, or indeed, a really nerdy fantasy fan boy relation to them ( in the case of Anomander in Gardens and Karsa Orlong in Book 4 and onwards.
They are rewarding and have some of the best moments in anything I've ever read but if you're not invested by now I doubt you will be. Bonehunters is next for you right? Which is my favourite, but the points of view get even more ridiculous at this point. By all means give it a go and I'd hope you fall in love with it, but if not that's ok

[Studious Lock]

My favourite thing about the series has always been the characters. They've just always felt so real to me, probably because of Eriksons habit to show and not tell. It always annoys me when authors give me a characters life story in past tense in some attempt to.... errrr fuck knows to be honest, create a connection? Explain their actions? Don't understand it really. I tend to just turn off, as if I've suddenly found myself at the bar with a rambling drunk guy I really can't be arsed speaking to.

Anyway I think the reason some people find Eriksons characterisation weak is because he gives his characters realistic, sometimes meandering thoughts and perspectives. When was the last time you thought through your entire life story in a sensibly structured way, on the off chance that someone might be listening in and trying to understand you?

[Seren's sister]

Quote

I didn't find the first section of House of Chains boring. I did find it a bit difficult to read at times, but that wasn't because it was boring; it was because Karsa was an asshole

Yep- he reminds me of a work colleague...be nice to see them humbled in chains, but perhaps not the tattoos . And yes, Iove the Tehol and Bugg banter.