[Salt-Man Z]

This convo started on the temp board, but it's interesting enough (and I liked my response enough) that I thought I'd port it over here:

xombi said:

Hello,

Newbie on this board but wanted to come on a forum and discuss the Malazan series, so this seemed a good place to start.

A quick bit about how I came to read the series. I initially started reading Game of Thrones as a result of seeing the first series and then once I finished reading all of GRRM's ASOIAF series up to where he has got so far I wanted something else to read and after a few searches The Fall of The Malazan showed up, I did some checking on Amazon in the reviews and decided to give it a try and I am glad I did. I read all ten books one after another and just finished the crippled god this week.

I was impressed with how much he actually managed to get in the last book and how many characters appeared all be it briefly in some cases but did wish a few plot thread either were resolved or if they have been resolved were clearer so I didn't miss them! (Although over 10 books I guess I don't feel too bad if I missed a couple of things!).

Anyway I was wondering out of those who have read both ASOIAF and TFOTM which do you prefer? Personally I actually prefer TFOTM more, I have read a reasonable amount in my times and Steven is one of the few fantasy writers who has actually taken me through a whole range of emotions in his books, most I tend to read almost on auto pilot even though I have enjoyed them.

With this series I have laughed, been repulsed made to feel emotional wont put what exactly but one particular part of epilogue 1 of the crippled god springs to mind for that but there were other points both in this book and some of the ones before.

I love the way he introduced characters with a decent background even if they were only to be killed off a page later lol

Trying to decide whether to go straight into book 1 of the new trilogy or read Esselmont's novels next any thoughts?

I'd recommend hitting up ICE's series first, just because it ties in with the MBotF so closely at points, and it's best if that's still fresh in your mind. You can't go wrong either way, though.

My own situation is peculiar: I was introduced to Malazan six years ago, and have read everything except the most recent ICE and B&KB books. But I just started reading ASoIaF a couple months ago for the first time (having remained almost entirely spoiler-free all these years) and just recently finished the third book.

GRRM is one heckuva storyteller. And his characters are very richly drawn. All around, the series (so far) is masterfully written. What his work hasn't done yet that SE's has is make me think and make me feel. Yes, GRRM has given me the occasional emotional gut-punch and made my jaw drop in wonder. But it's very much like watching a great TV series: I'm invested, yes, but it's all external to my self, if that makes any sense. SE plays with theme and voice and style such that I've internalized the MBoTF; I haven't shed a tear once for ASoIaF, but a single line from the MBotF (many of them, in fact) can get me bawling. As Donaldson says, SE "does something that only the rarest of books can manage: it alters the reader’s perception of reality." GRRM hasn't done that, but that's no slight against him; I don't think his series was written with that purpose. The MBotF was, and more importantly, it does.

[Tehol the Only]

Quote

it's very much like watching a great TV series: I'm invested, yes, but it's all external to my self

This. I read ASoIaF (up to A Feast for crows) a few months before starting MbotF: i was entertained (very much so at some points), but nothing more. Mr Erikson managed instead, in Donaldson's words, to alter my very perceptions.
Tears? I hear you, brother .... never shed a tear in my life for a book or a movie but some moments in Mbotf just destroyed my guts.

[polishgenius]

It's a difficult one to compare because in many ways they're so completely opposite to each other - Martin is going for a realistic-ish feel and slow-build, drip feed storytelling with nuanced characters driving the plot, whereas Erikson is tapping much more into the myth-feel, with lots of stylisation in prose and dialogue and archetypal, pantheonic characters. Almost every writer of epic fantasy or swords-and-sorcery could fall somewhere between them.



I rank Malazan higher as a series though because Martin's characters, while well drawn within themselves, always come off as cold to me, and watching the show (which does this particular aspect better) reinforced the conclusion that Martin simply doesn't write interactions between them that well, apart from the odd exception; plus, while both writers get somewhat sloppy with structure and pacing as the series go on, the problems in Malazan aren't nearly as damaging as the ones in aSoIaF (although, in part, especially in Toll the Hounds, this is because SE's event-laden story style hides such flaws better rather than that they're less there).

I prefer Daniel Abraham as far as writers who do kind of what Martin does, though so far he's written on a much smaller scale.

[worry]

Vague talk of first three ASOIF books, no direct spoilers except where hidden (and Salt-Man Z, you shouldn't be reading stuff like the "Do you get worn out?" thread until you finish all five!!!! TSK TSK!)

While I agree with you there, I do think that GRRM shares some similar themes that are just much further subsumed by the POVs than SE does, because SE's books always have a storyteller element that's there with the reader, while GRRM sets you there down in the muck alone. Neither of them holds your hand, but SE does put his arm around your shoulder on occasion while GRRM basically never does. So it's up to you and you alone to feel sympathy for Arya or the Hound or Cersei or Joffrey or Theon, if you can, or to pick up on background stuff like the feminist filter GRRM uses on occasion, or small humanistic touches like

Spoiler

the female Innkeeper who chews sourleaf that Catelyn visits in book 1, who is then killed by the Lannisters offhand and strung up outside, I think in book 2.

They're both also schooled in the Rashomon way of storytelling, a simple concept but so enriching and underutilized by many.

To answer OP question, I prefer SE's books because I like the scope, the po-mo meta stuff, the variety, and a whole list of other stuff, but I think both their voices are vital. To me it's like they solved the same math problem in completely different ways.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 06 December 2012 - 01:55 AM

[Defiance]

You guys have summed up my feelings pretty well. Both are great in their own right, and while comparisons are inevitable due to the fact that it's how we make value judgments, I think it often undermines what the authors have set out to do. For example, criticizing GRRM for not having deep philosophical elements is silly since it's not what he is trying to do.

In terms of reading order, read all of ICE's books in order up until Orb, Sceptre, Throne. After OST I highly recommend reading Forge of Darkness before going on to Blood and Bone, as Forge illuminates on a few things from OST and provides some increased relevance for some things in Blood and Bone.

[Salt-Man Z]

worrywort, on 06 December 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

(and Salt-Man Z, you shouldn't be reading stuff like the "Do you get worn out?" thread until you finish all five!!!! TSK TSK!)

Ha! Don't worry (worry), I've hardly read it, and what I have I've skimmed with extreme prejudice.

worry said:

To me it's like they solved the same math problem in completely different ways.

This.

This post has been edited by Salt-Man Z: 06 December 2012 - 02:43 AM

[McLovin]

Briar King, on 06 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

They are both fantasy but 2 dif types. Malazan is High Fantasy, GoT is Fantasy.

I solved this conundrum by reading GoT while high.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I read both while high. In fact, there are only two times when I smoke weed: When I read GRRM and when I don't read GRRM.

[Mentalist]

Others have said it--they try to do different things.

FWIW, for myself, SE reads more like a history novel/textbook. Which is a great thing, btw, as I love history. But the point is, there's far more of a "this is a slice of the world that exists without you caring about it" feeling than I do with GRRM. ASOIAF is a great series, and Martin should be commended for what he does, but it despite looking at the old tropes from a new angle, I still find Martin's work far more feeling far more "familiar". Whereas I find SE pushing the boundaries in a way few authors can.

And I guess I'm more of a complex plot v well-defined characters kind of reader. and SE's far grander scope just interests me more. (That is not to say that SE does poor characters, but I've met a number of people who loved ASOIAF, but didn't care much for MBotF, because "they couldn't find a character they liked"

[Macros]

Its hard to find a character in ASoiaF that I DO like!

I think comparisons are tough because GRRM isn t finished yet, where as Erikson pounded out a book a year and wrapped his series on time and nicely.

for me Malazan wns hands down because after book 4 I just stopped caring about anything in Martins work, absolutely nothing moved me me or compelled me to turn pages.

[Studlock]

I'll always enjoy SE work more than GRRM's. His style is simply more I want in a book than anything I've read from GRRM (which admittedly is only ASoIaF). I would disagree with worrywort upthread, whilst there is humanist themes in GRRM books it's definitely not the focus of the books whereas SE theme is all about compassion and empathy. In the end I think both series are asking very different questions, MBotF is asking, pleading really, for the readers to feel empathy for the 'other' and you can see this throughout the books. ASoIaF isn't asking it's readers that question but rather showing how power in an actual fantasy setting would work along with all the brutality and terrible people that comes with it. The empathy is left to the readers which I feel is a meta effect of the book rather than a direct theme (which in my mind is a important point to make).

I also disagree that SE doesn't write as complex characters as GRRM, it's just GRRM has less POV's and admittedly some of SE characters are static (some like Kruppe who are suppose to be and other who just fall flat). I would raise Karsa or Rhulad as being as complex and as full of characters as Tyrion or really any other character in the ASoIaF.

In the end I enjoy SE's work because it reminds me more of the goodness in monsters rather than monsters in all of us as ASoIaF does.

[blackzoid]

But some of those ASoIaF monsters are utterly fantastic!
Roose Bolton and Tywin are great!

And who isn't a fan of Stannis the Mannis?
Dany be damned that who everyone really wants on the Iron Throne.

SE writes better emotion filled scenes.
GRRM writes better "realistic" scenes.
Both are a joy to read. Mostly.