Yeah, I believe you are referring to
this Tor.com article. That appears to be more of a marketing thing than an actual author recommendation. There was a
thread on /r/malazan where a redditor claimed to have talked to Erikson about this article, and Erikson said:
Quote
I spoke with Ian about this. It seems that a few years back we worked out a sequential timeline for the Malazan history we were exploring. This is that list, supplied to Tor.com by Ian. That said, I don't think it applies as an actual reading order. Rather, it was the two of us hashing stuff out. Both Ian and I would recommend the basic publication order.
Erikson himself has recommended reading the books in the order they were published in
this interview (scroll to the bottom for the English translation).
Quote
I have seen a number of projected orders. For myself, I would take it in the basic order of publication dates. Why? Well, thematically, the internal timeline is less important than the meta-reality of when we, as writers, wrote the books. Even in our flashback works, we cannot help but be aware of what we've written before, and how the two forces resonate with one another. It would, in my humble opinion, be a mistake to ignore that element."
You can see a number of different suggested reading orders, including the published reading order,
here on the wiki.