[Mob]

As a big fan of both the Malazan series and A Song of Ice and Fire, it always disappoints me that whereas the latter is served through several good websites producing really excellent regular essays on events/plans/characters within the series, the Malazan world isn't.

I realise that this is partly a function of their relative popularity - ASOIAF must be 50x more popular, has more of a community feel as a result, and thus can draw from a larger pool of people to generate those expert enough/willing to spend time writing essays, discussing on forums, so on - but I wonder if there is more than that.

Look at the essays on some of these sites, for instance: http://towerofthehand.com http://racefortheiro...e.wordpress.com https://bryndenbfish.wordpress.com

As a professional political historian, I can say that some of the analyses of available textual evidence from ASOIAF on these sites are really excellent.

I think that it would be relatively difficult to write many comparable essays on the Malazan series - and believe me I have intermittently thought about doing so.

Many of the ASOIAF essays deal with the power-political machinations of key individuals: Varys, Littlefinger, Tywin, Tyrion, Cersei, Stannis, Bolton, Robb and so on. These people are all power players. They are the drivers of their own plots/schemes.

In the Malazan world, things are different. Sure, you could author comparable - and very rich - essays on, say, the grand strategy of Shadowthrone; the plan and endgame of Anomander Rake; the genus schemes of Kruppe; Rell's imposition of himself on Laseen and subsequent coup; or the Crippled God. But, for the most part, the characters we engage with are not the ones with the power. They are usually trapped in the web of someone else's plans/ambitions (and often foil them). It would be hard to subject even a great schemer like Quick Ben to the ASOIAF treatment. Though both series are about intrigue,the Malazan books actually yield far more to philosophical than political analysis.

This just struck me whilst reading some of the ASOIAF essays. I'm sure I can't be the only person to be disappointed that the Malazan series hasn't yielded the same sort of treatment. I would be interested in any thoughts on the point I made above.

This post has been edited by Mob: 03 January 2015 - 09:45 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Malazan is more difficult to write about in a holisitic fashion because it isn't as simple as Ice and Fire.

Also, I'm sorry our discussions aren't up to your par. I feel bad about it.

[Dolmen 2.0]

It Chiefly revolves around the directive of the authors.

Lots of comparisons are made between ASOIAF and many of the other major fantasy works of our time, the Malazan empire being lesser known but more than equal in scope and depth(IMO). I think its because Fantasy today is championed by authors that present entirely different ways to experience the genre. These comparisons are unavoidable but its apples and oranges because the authors set out to achieve hugely different things, they both break away from the norm but that's where commonality ends.

GRRM wrote his works in a way that builds off a very firm foundation. Open book one of the ASOIAF series and you're reading about things relatively familiar and thus very quickly adjusted to. From here GRRMs key theme and plot mechanizations are plainly visible, subsequent delivery is all important and GRRM is very good at that delivery. He's broken away from normal story-telling by running big events concurrently, keeping things morbid so as to keep you reeling mentally. if plot was represented by cogs then I'd relate the machine behind ASOIF as something alike to a car. Everything is moving at once chasing individual goals that move the story forward.

We know that the disparate activities in the books will come to a head but that isn't really the draw, the draw is a need to answer what happens next? Its a thrilling ride. To this end its interesting to read blogs analyzing the goings on of ASOIAF because it keeps you in touch with the broader perspective because when in the book you're more concerned with each characters next step, you can almost sense GRRM looming over each character with some inexplicable ill fate just waiting to pounce. Its fueled by complex drama but heads to a rather familiar end, the dominion of the throne.

Now the Malazan Empire represents the other side of the coin. In this series book one is...smoke and mirrors. it looks messy and confusing, nothing is set firmly on easily recognizable foundations. To take my previous metaphor the machinations of the story "cogs" resemble a bunch of successive vaults, you need to familiarize yourself with all the levers to crack the story and unlock new layers to different parts of the story.

Mages aren't just mages. Assasins aren't just assasins. Gods are not just Gods. The very fact Gods are readily thrown into book one of the series can make people stumble. in several other Books characters as potent as Anomander Rake or Caladan Brood do not get involved the way they are in MBotF. Heck characters like Quick Ben and Sorry are in all honestly protagonist material and yet they're relegated to the sidelines more often than not. This makes reading Malazan stories frustrating for people that want the story from a set perspective. Its a HUGE block for readers trying the books for the first time.

But then without it we would not get into the depth of the books and thats SE and ICE's goal. The unique, hard to familiarize with, races offer unique perspectives not many other series can offer. Seeing things from the perspective of Icarium, Calm or even Onos T'oolan helps us tap into very unique minds with very singular memories and world views. The characters carry so much history its impossible to read the books and not sit back and muse on the larger goings on. You read exciting scenes sure but the main hunger for MBotF is this desire to get as many vantages as possible of the very large, somewhat blurry, Plot filling the horizon. the same thing we need to step away from in series like ASOIAF we need to zoom in on, read carefully and repeatedly, to fully appreciate in MBotF.

The idea of convergences is the main running theme. Explorations on the gathering of people and the resultant power/potential therein, the ability for that power to draw more power to it colours everything. Every nounce of plot revolves around how this power/potential is exploited, abused, corrected, corrupted, manifest and anticipated. I don't know if this is something that could hold to in-depth analysis as normally in the aftermath of the convergences the lessons conveyed are subjective and carried over to the next one.
-------------------

TL;DR

The same people writing in depth analysis of ASOIAF are smart enough to access and write on the Malazan series, I'm sure several could even. Like you say the goal was more the psychological exploration and as such not many people would want to focus on logistical aspects and stratagems. Anomander Rakes over-arching ideals made his decisions, that's what fascinates me. The apathy of his people governed his hand. Rather than analyzing grand plans I think most Malazan readers would prefer to analyze personality complexities, That might be too much an undertaking as the Power players involved are vast and difficult to pin down because of their alien nature.

This post has been edited by Dolmen 2.0: 03 January 2015 - 04:56 PM

[Mob]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 January 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Malazan is more difficult to write about in a holisitic fashion because it isn't as simple as Ice and Fire.

Also, I'm sorry our discussions aren't up to your par. I feel bad about it.

What the...?

Where did I critique discussions on this forum? I have been lurking here, with great profit, for almost four years. The thread EXPLICTLY related to ESSAYS.

I realise that Malazan/ASOIAF is a rivalry for some, but please don't wilfully mischaracterise what I said. In doing so, you undermine any claim to being taken seriously.

[Mob]

Dolmen 2.0, on 03 January 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

It Chiefly revolves around the directive of the authors.

Lots of comparisons are made between ASOIAF and many of the other major fantasy works of our time, the Malazan empire being lesser known but more than equal in scope and depth(IMO). I think its because Fantasy today is championed by authors that present entirely different ways to experience the genre. These comparisons are unavoidable but its apples and oranges because the authors set out to achieve hugely different things, they both break away from the norm but that's where commonality ends.

GRRM wrote his works in a way that builds off a very firm foundation. Open book one of the ASOIAF series and you're reading about things relatively familiar and thus very quickly adjusted to. From here GRRMs key theme and plot mechanizations are plainly visible, subsequent delivery is all important and GRRM is very good at that delivery. He's broken away from normal story-telling by running big events concurrently, keeping things morbid so as to keep you reeling mentally. if plot was represented by cogs then I'd relate the machine behind ASOIF as something alike to a car. Everything is moving at once chasing individual goals that move the story forward.

We know that the disparate activities in the books will come to a head but that isn't really the draw, the draw is a need to answer what happens next? Its a thrilling ride. To this end its interesting to read blogs analyzing the goings on of ASOIAF because it keeps you in touch with the broader perspective because when in the book you're more concerned with each characters next step, you can almost sense GRRM looming over each character with some inexplicable ill fate just waiting to pounce. Its fueled by complex drama but heads to a rather familiar end, the dominion of the throne.

Now the Malazan Empire represents the other side of the coin. In this series book one is...smoke and mirrors. it looks messy and confusing, nothing is set firmly on easily recognizable foundations. To take my previous metaphor the machinations of the story "cogs" resemble a bunch of successive vaults, you need to familiarize yourself with all the levers to crack the story and unlock new layers to different parts of the story.

Mages aren't just mages. Assasins aren't just assasins. Gods are not just Gods. The very fact Gods are readily thrown into book one of the series can make people stumble. in several other Books characters as potent as Anomander Rake or Caladan Brood do not get involved the way they are in MBotF. Heck characters like Quick Ben and Sorry are in all honestly protagonist material and yet they're relegated to the sidelines more often than not. This makes reading Malazan stories frustrating for people that want the story from a set perspective. Its a HUGE block for readers trying the books for the first time.

But then without it we would not get into the depth of the books and thats SE and ICE's goal. The unique hard to familiarize with races offer unique perspectives not many other series can offer. Seeing things from the perspective of Icarium, Calm or even Onos T'oolan helps us tap into very unique minds with very singular memories and world views. The characters carry so much history its impossible to read the books and not sit back and muse on the larger goings on. You read exciting scenes sure but the main hunger for MBotF is this desire to get as many vantages of the very large, somewhat blurry Plot filling the horizon. the same thing we need to step away from in series like ASOIAF we need to zoom in on, read carefully and repeatedly, to fully appreciate in MBotF.

The idea of convergences is the main running theme. Explorations on the gathering of people and the resultant power/potential therein, the ability for that power to draw more power to it colours everything. Every nounce of plot revolves around how this power/potential is exploited, abused, corrected, corrupted, manifest and anticipated. I don't know if this is something that could hold to in-depth analysis as normally in the aftermath of the convergences the lessons conveyed are subjective and carried over to the next one.
-------------------

TL;DR

The same people writing in depth analysis of ASOIAF are smart enough to access and write on the Malazan series, I'm sure several could even. Like you say the goal was more the psychological exploration and as such not many people would want to focus on logistical aspects and stratagems. Anomander Rakes over-arching ideals made his decisions, that's what fascinates me. The apathy of his people governed his hand. Rather than analyzing grand plans I think most Malazan readers would prefer to analyze personality complexities, That might be too much an undertaking as the Power players involved are vast and difficult to pin down because of their alien nature.

Excellent posts and insights. Very helpful. As you say, some key figures are alien which makes it difficult to make firm judgements.

I suspect that another explanation is that much of the ASOIAF material is speculative. The series is still ongoing, books are published infrequently, and the fan base is huge. Lots of people with lots of time. Most of the essays on the sites I linked to deal, even if indirectly, with where the various plots might go next. With Malazan, the fan base is smaller but there has been a steady diet of published material. Less need to speculate than the monumental amounts of speculation going on in ASOIAF community (though, of course, there is still tons to speculate about in Malazan) and greater opportunity to actually consume fresh material from SE and ICE. You used the analogy of machinery: as a production line, Malazan has markedly greater output than ASOIAF. If SE and ICE were publishing two books per decade, maybe Malazan fans would resort to the same methods as we see in the ASOIAF community.

[Gorefest]

Plus, ASOIAF has a tv series. Prior to the tv series the amount of essays and reviews was relatively small as well. But now that every man and their dog are watching the show, it becomes far more rewarding (not in a financial sense, necessarily, but for the amount of engagement) to invest time and effort in it. But apart from that, the mere given that ASOIAF is not a finished story yet means that there is lots of room for speculation. MbotF is a finished arc, so any speculation and involvement will be 'limited' (if you can use that word for a universe with over 300,000 years of history) to throwaway remarks and charater motivations.

[Andorion]

I have not read ASIOF in its entirety (all the published stuff, nor watched the TV show)so anything I say is inherently limited by that. I did try to start the series twice and the second time I got quite far. But I stopped. The reason being at its heart ASIOF is essentailly a bunch of people plotting and fighting for superiority. Now I have no doubt that GRRM does this in a very engaging manner, but I want more. I remember when I first read GotM, I was petrified by the beginning, with the Hound massacre. Then during the description of the sorcery enfilade at Pale, it took me some time to grasp that Moon's Spawn is essentially just floatiing up there, but when I did understand it blew my mind. So the attraction for me was that right from the beginning there was no holding back, things were moving, and most importantly magic was heavily present. One of the main reasons I read fantasy is because of the magic system. I love it when the magic is heavy and interwoven constantly into the story. Thats where Malazan delivers. Always.


Also if ASIOF fans speculate about what can happen, here we have our hands full just specualting about what has already happened under our noses. That speaks volumes about the depth and layering of the books

[D'iversify]

I think Erikson definitely has his fans in academia, but what people like him for is often different than Martin. Erikson's academic strength is his base in archaeology and anthropology - fantasy fans in those disciplines do often genuinely love the way Erikson and Esselmont built Wu up from its environmental foundation to establish different cultures with distinct ways of life based on their relations with the environment. And Erikson's depiction of Lether certainly accords with the sympathies of many archaeologists and anthropologists critical of colonial treatment of indigenous peoples and the environmental depredations of western consumerism. Admittedly, I think these kind of issues don't fascinate people outside of academia to the same extent as political machinations, so I don't think it's just its lesser popularity which has discouraged the kind of thorough analysis fans have given ASOIAF.

[Andorion]

D, on 04 January 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

I think Erikson definitely has his fans in academia, but what people like him for is often different than Martin. Erikson's academic strength is his base in archaeology and anthropology - fantasy fans in those disciplines do often genuinely love the way Erikson and Esselmont built Wu up from its environmental foundation to establish different cultures with distinct ways of life based on their relations with the environment. And Erikson's depiction of Lether certainly accords with the sympathies of many archaeologists and anthropologists critical of colonial treatment of indigenous peoples and the environmental depredations of western consumerism. Admittedly, I think these kind of issues don't fascinate people outside of academia to the same extent as political machinations, so I don't think it's just its lesser popularity which has discouraged the kind of thorough analysis fans have given ASOIAF.

Oh I agree. SE uses a lot of strategies and moves that only someone in academia would really appreciate. His archaeological and anthropological background lends Wu more texture and depth.

[Saitama]

Basically, what Dolmen 2.0 said. ASOIAF is my #2 series right behind Malazan, but I enjoy reading essays concerning Planetos way, way more than those about Wu. It has, I think, a lot to do with reference points - knowledge of history, politics and economy make it a lot easier to come up with a sensible theory. Relatively minimal supernatural elements simplify it even more. Meanwhile, the Malazan world is so full of magic and alien creatures that any sufficiently advanced theory is indistinguishable from fan fiction (wink, wink).

[Grief]

Mob, on 03 January 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

Many of the ASOIAF essays deal with the power-political machinations of key individuals: Varys, Littlefinger, Tywin, Tyrion, Cersei, Stannis, Bolton, Robb and so on. These people are all power players. They are the drivers of their own plots/schemes.

In the Malazan world, things are different.

I think this is an important distinction. I don't think it's that MBotF doesn't spend time considering the power players of the world, but rather the approach the two authors take to engaging with these characters, and the mehanics of power in the two universes. That ASOIAF essays deal with power-political machinations is hardly surprising, given that these machinations are front and centre in the books. ASOIAF is relatively low on fantastical elements in comparison to MBotF, realpolitik and political scheming is a large part of the character's introspection, and the world and political system therein draw heavily from mediaeveal history. This makes it rather accessible for certain sorts of analysis; we can approach the books by using similar approaches as we tend to use with mediaeval history and politics, and can discuss many of the same sorts of issues. Malazan doesn't seem as broadly accessible to these same approaches (hopefully unecessary disclaimer: this is not meant as a criticism of either author). Martin's consistent political focus really lays out a systemic framework for analysizing ASOIAF. Pretty much every character could be analysed in a political framework. I don't think there is any approach that could be taken so consistently in analysizing every character of MBotF. This isn't to say that in depth analysis with MBotF isn't similarly possible (and I agree that it is likely less common because of the huge recent popularity of ASOIAF), I just think that the framework for it isn't as clear, and might need to focus on things like the relationship of power and individuality in the books, or Erikson's anthropologically influenced commentaries, as opposed to using forms of historical political analysis.

[Mob]

D, on 04 January 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

I think Erikson definitely has his fans in academia, but what people like him for is often different than Martin. Erikson's academic strength is his base in archaeology and anthropology - fantasy fans in those disciplines do often genuinely love the way Erikson and Esselmont built Wu up from its environmental foundation to establish different cultures with distinct ways of life based on their relations with the environment. And Erikson's depiction of Lether certainly accords with the sympathies of many archaeologists and anthropologists critical of colonial treatment of indigenous peoples and the environmental depredations of western consumerism. Admittedly, I think these kind of issues don't fascinate people outside of academia to the same extent as political machinations, so I don't think it's just its lesser popularity which has discouraged the kind of thorough analysis fans have given ASOIAF.

It would be really interesting to know how many Malazan hardcores are in academia. Reading of the books is really aided by those skills.

[Mob]

Andorion, on 03 January 2015 - 05:21 PM, said:

I have not read ASIOF in its entirety (all the published stuff, nor watched the TV show)so anything I say is inherently limited by that. I did try to start the series twice and the second time I got quite far. But I stopped. The reason being at its heart ASIOF is essentailly a bunch of people plotting and fighting for superiority. Now I have no doubt that GRRM does this in a very engaging manner, but I want more. I remember when I first read GotM, I was petrified by the beginning, with the Hound massacre. Then during the description of the sorcery enfilade at Pale, it took me some time to grasp that Moon's Spawn is essentially just floatiing up there, but when I did understand it blew my mind. So the attraction for me was that right from the beginning there was no holding back, things were moving, and most importantly magic was heavily present. One of the main reasons I read fantasy is because of the magic system. I love it when the magic is heavy and interwoven constantly into the story. Thats where Malazan delivers. Always.


Also if ASIOF fans speculate about what can happen, here we have our hands full just specualting about what has already happened under our noses. That speaks volumes about the depth and layering of the books

Yes, the opening of GOTM hooked me in the same way. There is nothing like it.

That said, having recently re-read the entirety of ASOIAF and done so in a forensic fashion (focused less on 'finding out what happens' than appreciating the texts), I realised that as a storyteller GRRM's work is just as good, in its own way, as SE's. Like SE, every sentence is pregnant with meaning; everything Martin writes is significant. Meanwhile Martin's analysis of the exercise of power is certainly at least on par with, and probably better than, that of Erikson.

[Mob]

Grief, on 05 January 2015 - 12:45 AM, said:

Mob, on 03 January 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

Many of the ASOIAF essays deal with the power-political machinations of key individuals: Varys, Littlefinger, Tywin, Tyrion, Cersei, Stannis, Bolton, Robb and so on. These people are all power players. They are the drivers of their own plots/schemes.

In the Malazan world, things are different.

I think this is an important distinction. I don't think it's that MBotF doesn't spend time considering the power players of the world, but rather the approach the two authors take to engaging with these characters, and the mehanics of power in the two universes. That ASOIAF essays deal with power-political machinations is hardly surprising, given that these machinations are front and centre in the books. ASOIAF is relatively low on fantastical elements in comparison to MBotF, realpolitik and political scheming is a large part of the character's introspection, and the world and political system therein draw heavily from mediaeveal history. This makes it rather accessible for certain sorts of analysis; we can approach the books by using similar approaches as we tend to use with mediaeval history and politics, and can discuss many of the same sorts of issues. Malazan doesn't seem as broadly accessible to these same approaches (hopefully unecessary disclaimer: this is not meant as a criticism of either author). Martin's consistent political focus really lays out a systemic framework for analysizing ASOIAF. Pretty much every character could be analysed in a political framework. I don't think there is any approach that could be taken so consistently in analysizing every character of MBotF. This isn't to say that in depth analysis with MBotF isn't similarly possible (and I agree that it is likely less common because of the huge recent popularity of ASOIAF), I just think that the framework for it isn't as clear, and might need to focus on things like the relationship of power and individuality in the books, or Erikson's anthropologically influenced commentaries, as opposed to using forms of historical political analysis.

Excellent points. I fully agree with this.

[Puck]

I haven't read ASOIAF, but with MBOTF it always struck me that the relationship between the individual and the environment is much more important as a theme than the great picture of things/politics, and as such I could, say, see an analysis of individual characters as much more likely (and, for me, much more interesting in the case of MBOTF) than an analysis of the events, if that makes sense. Let's say, we all know what happened at the end of TtH. That's quite clear, there's no need for speculation. However, what lead to that outcome can be speculated on, and we could possibly go back as far as GotM and question whether the groundwork for Rake's plan were laid back then. Basically, it's analysing things backwards, not 'this is what we have, what could come out of it?', but 'this is what happened, how come?'

Furthermore, many of the 'rules' governing events within MBOTF are ones exclusive to Wu, not, say, accepted political theories based in our own history. And even then, we're not really sure about a lot of those rules, are we? What counts as a convergence? Is the number of forces important or the power/perceived power of the forces present the telling point? What is power, anyway? All of this is quite vague, can change and is mired within the metaphysics of Wu. This kind of thing seems really only interesting to hardcore fans, I'd say.

This post has been edited by Puck: 11 January 2015 - 01:18 PM

[Felisin Fatter]

In my mind the comparison is this (and yes, I have thought about this quite a bit...):

- Martin made a tapestry, beautiful and well thought out. He then shows you pieces of it, enough to speculate about where those threads go and where they came from and how they most likely fit together, This rewards rereading. What I find most fascinating with Martin is how there is a history that is only hinted at, or told in a twisted way as propaganda. It is interesting to figure out what really happened, who is lying and why. I also prefer books with little to no magic (Malazan is the surprise exception there) so my interest in this story has actually been waning with the increase of magical elements. (Also, because he seems incapable of neatly tying it off within his lifetime. The latest book was sloppy and no more seems to be coming any time soon.)

- MBotF is a helicopter ride. You're moving through a three dimensional landscape, and surprise! You are the pilot! So at first you are scrambling to find out what's up and down, how to stay in the air and other such necessities. Once you manage that, you start looking around for a map so you can position yourself and figure out where you're going. Only when you manage that, or give up on it, you suddenly notice the breathtaking landscape around you. Then you start again from the beginning and it's a very different ride!

[Egwene]

The ramblings of a non-academic...

In answer to the OP - I do believe that the one and only reason for the proliferance of material anout ASOIAF is that it is on TV. Without any corroborating evidence, I am certain that prior to that exposure the discussions for both series would have been on similar scales albeit not along the same lines. The two are after all quite different as several posters have already adequately indicated. Sex and violence (the usual crowd pleasers} are dealt with very contrastingly by the authors.

I read GRRM a long time ago and although I kept with it for several books, and tried again once or twice, I simply could not get on with them. To be honest, I found them boring. Doesn't mean that I think GRRM is a bad author, just that it went right past my own excitement buttons. Maybe because it is all about politics. The MBotF deals more with the fall-out of politics for everyone else, rather than with how it effects those who made the plan.

If I say that the Malazan books are much more about real life than ASOIAF it may sound a strange thing to say, what with all the magic... but again and again, the events make me think about human history, not just our present one, but all that has ever been. It is as if Neanderthals, ancient Egyptians and modern humans are all there at the same time, each bringing different sets of motivations to the table whilst at the same time being ruled by emotions that are not that different from each other, then, all in a sudden, totally alien as well.

The way humanity bounces off each other is very complex, very confusing and often governed by being in the right place at the right time or being in the wrong place at the wrong time and all variations thereof. What holds true for our own individual lives also applies to nations, races, religious groups, etc. The Malazan books show that more than any books I have ever read. People act based on what they believe is happening/has happened and time and again we are shown that the truth is not that clear cut.

Maybe what it boils down to is 'time'. The Malazan books are all about how time changes things. How events are perceived, how people cope, how the only thing which is possibly real is likely the present... but that is already distorted by the past on which it is based on being misrepresented...

I could ramble on, but what I am trying to express is a maelstrom of emotions which the MBotF provokes page after page. ASOIAF didn't. I could probably write essays about that series and not this one for that very reason.

[amphibian]

I was seeing ASOIAF academic-type things before the show popped up.

My chief thought on why it's more popular to analyze that show is because by and large, GRRM based the plot of ASOIAF on real world events like the War of the Roses and other events from Western European history that are fairly well known to the crowd that knows that stuff.

That same crowd also likes to write academic-type papers on stuff - because it's either a hobby for them or it's their job.

The events in Malazan draws thematically from our real world human history much more than ASOIAF does. Erikson cared/cares less about what exactly happened way back than GRRM. Erikson cares more about why it happened and what ripple effects it had in a societal/organizational view.

An example is the Snake - which was based on all sorts of recent and historical treks by children or persecuted others. There's no exact correlation to it in the real world and that makes it harder to discuss in an academic setting.

It's not that ASOIAF and Malazan are better than one another. It's that one is more easily approachable by those who already like doing that stuff.

[Andorion]

The TV show contributed massively to the popularity and 'mainstreaming' of ASOIAF. Plus there's the macro vs micro theme issue. From the long-term perspective a bunch of people fighting over who gets to sit on an iron chair is pretty micro. In MBotF entire Ice Ages triggerred by wars in the other hand is a micro-theme - a specific war mutating into a macro-theme. The Wars of the Roses point above is very well-made. If you are going to take historical events and set them in a fantsay context, it may make for very fine reading, but it also narrows down the scope of the narrative and the plot. If on the other hand you have a fresh world with an intentionally dispersed racial structure, with deep anthropological and archaeological structuring, the scope is naturally broadened.

[Werthead]

Andorion, on 12 January 2015 - 02:06 AM, said:

The TV show contributed massively to the popularity and 'mainstreaming' of ASOIAF. Plus there's the macro vs micro theme issue. From the long-term perspective a bunch of people fighting over who gets to sit on an iron chair is pretty micro. In MBotF entire Ice Ages triggerred by wars in the other hand is a micro-theme - a specific war mutating into a macro-theme. The Wars of the Roses point above is very well-made. If you are going to take historical events and set them in a fantsay context, it may make for very fine reading, but it also narrows down the scope of the narrative and the plot. If on the other hand you have a fresh world with an intentionally dispersed racial structure, with deep anthropological and archaeological structuring, the scope is naturally broadened.

Before the TV show had started, ASoIaF had outsold MALAZAN (which had just concluded) by approximately 600%, and that was of four compares to MALAZAN's then-ten (not counting ICE or the novellas). The TV show has caused that to explode massively (the ratio is now 30+ million copies of five novels to 2 million of 11, not counting ICE or the novellas). So the fact that the ASoIaF fanbase dwarfs the MALAZAN one is certainly part of the issue, although not a definitive one. There is also a hell of a lot more nitty-gritty discussion of the philosophical underpinnings and themes of Scott Bakker's novels than there has been of Erikson, yet Erikson has outsold him massively.

Another is that ASoIaF is a much easier series to get into (to even Erikson's regret) and uses superficial simplicity to hide much greater depth and complexity, such as the interrogation of power and consequence that continues through each book. For example, ASoIaF is influenced by the Wars of the Roses but it is very definitely not the case that Martin takes those same events and resets them in a fantasy context. There are allusions to real events (and on a much broader sweep, including to things like Napoleon's march on Moscow, Roman politics and Babylonian history) but the books aren't simply recasting them. The suggestion that the books are also just about people who are fighting to sit on a chair is also a gross oversimplication of what is going on.

The other problem is that whilst Erikson engages with a much larger number of themes and ideas (as you'd expect, with a much larger number of novels so far to draw upon), he does not necessarily do so in significant depth. His exploration of capitalism in MIDNIGHT TIDES, for example, is interesting but the conclusions are ultimately fairly standard.

The final nail in the coffin is that whilst Martin has been happy to pin down and nail down ideas and concepts as long as they do not pertain to spoilers, Erikson has been massively more reluctant to confirm or deny anything (see his reluctance to comment on D'Rek's world map as a good example of that). With so little of the MALAZAN world set in stone (again, its world is bigger and more impressive than Westeros/Essos but it lacks anything like the depth of backstory and history, as Erikson is more interested in depicting the feel of that without the detail), it's difficult to have solid discussions about much of it. In fact, I get the impression that Erikson would rather people not engage in discussions of the nuts and bolts of the world but more in the thematic, tragic and philosophical aspects. The problem is that those aspects do require some solidity behind them to have a fruitful discussion, and ultimately MALAZAN is too vague in its worldbuilding to permit that.