Malazan Empire: An opinion on the Malazan series - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

An opinion on the Malazan series

#1 User is offline   ContrarianMalazanReader 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 12-October 20

Posted 01 March 2021 - 10:11 PM

Greetings everyone. I joined these forums late last year to discuss the Malazan series, and this is my long overdue topic.

I would like to start by saying what drew me to the Malazan books. Three years ago when the final season of Game of Thrones was going to premiere, I decided that I wanted to read an epic fantasy series aimed at adults that was already concluded, as I'm one of those GoT fans who refuses to read ASoIaF until all books are published.

One day scrolling through online messages somebody mentioned something called Malazan Book of the Fallen, and I did some googling and found a few online articles hailing Malazan as one of the best fantasy sagas that has ever been written, so I decided to give it a try, acquired all ten main books and the six novels, and spent the second half of the year 2019 reading the entire series all the way through, which took me about six months.

My opinion on the book series is this: I overall think it's just OK, nowhere near the masterpiece of modern literature everyone is making them out to be online, and book by book the series is a mixed bag. Some of the books are amazing, some I found just plain boring and a chore to read and others have nice moments in between really tedious reading.

According to Erikson and Esslemont one should always start with GotM and read the books in the order they were published, and up until TtH I did as they say, and the only time I didn't follow the publishing order was when I chose to read Stonewielder after TtH because I knew DoD and TCG encompass one story. Now, while I do agree that one should start with GotM as per the authors' wishes, as they want readers to decide if they want to read the rest of the books based on GotM alone, I don't agree with their recommendation of reading the books in the order they were published. Maybe it worked wonders for many readers, but the constant back and forth between continents and chronology, particularly in the first six books (five if NoK is omitted) created this sense of disruption in narrative flow which I found irritating.

Now I want to talk about what I liked about the books. First and foremost the discussions about the relationship between the human and the divine, the musings on civilization and how humans alter ecosystems to accommodate our needs, the questions about identity, the world building, the glimpses of civilizations past, the various myths and legends amongst different cultures, unsolved mysteries that illustrate the fragmented nature of history. Those pretty neat.

What I didn't like about the books is: the idle banter between the Malazan military, dialogue between characters that is so lacking in believability it leaves me wondering "who talks like this", the battles between armies which I frankly considered the most boring part of the books, the way stories diverge and branch out so far and wide to the extent that many are left out and never brought up again, characters who simply disappear from narrative in the most unsatisfying way and are never revisited, and finally there are many times when reading these books feels like a chore.

In the preface to GotM Erikson claims readers will either love his stuff or hate it, there's no middle ground, and indeed the very few posts I found about people who don't like the books are very negative about them, however I found myself in the rare position of having a middle ground view of the books, of which we are few and far between.

Regarding the writing style of Erikson and Esslemont, I have noticed many are dismissive of Esslemont and heaping all sorts of praise on Erikson. I will probably be accused of blasphemy, but, NoK notwithstanding, I must say I prefer Esslemont's writing to Erikson's, as Erikson's writing sometimes strikes me as little pretentious and self-indulgent, but that doesn't mean I think he's a bad writer, the Bauchelain and Korbal Broach short stories are proof of that, and I think that's where Erikson's strengths as a writer truly shine, in fact I sometimes feel the Malazan Book of the Fallen would have worked better if it was a compilation of short stories.

That's all I have to say in broad strokes, so I would do a ranking of sorts of the books I enjoyed, the ones I didn't like and the ones that are somewhere in between.

Liked: Gardens of the Moon, Midnight Tides, The Bonehunters, Return of the Crimson Guard, Orb Sceptre Throne, Blood and Bone.

Didn't like: Deadhouse Gates, Night of Knives, Toll the Hounds, Stonewielder.

OK: Memories of Ice, House of Chains, Reaper's Gale (the final two chapters are awesome and save what is an otherwise tedious book), Dust of Dreams, The Crippled God, Assail.

I've yet to read the Path to Ascendancy series, and I refuse to read the Kharkanas trilogy until the final entry in said trilogy is published, but frankly I don't feel any urge to read either of them.

It's been a year since I finished reading the books, and if I had to say where their biggest failure lies with me, it's the fact that they didn't leave a lasting impression in me. Seriously, I haven't given the books any real thought beyond the satisfaction of reading the series all the way through. That's not to say the books are bad, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered after GotM, but I still want to discuss the books, and who knows, maybe this will encourage me to read the PtA prequel series.

Overall series rating: 7/10.

Discuss.
1

#2 User is offline   Aptorian 

  • How 'bout a hug?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 24,778
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 02 March 2021 - 05:03 AM

I liked Esslemont's early writing style well enough, he emulated Erikson's voice well but had a more straightforward style, with less philosophy, at a point where Erikson's writing was getting a bit too melancholy and flowery for my taste.

To me it was never Esslemont's writing style that was an issue. It was his planning and plotting. Though I think he improved with every book he wrote, pretty much every book also left me annoyed and frustrated by endings that never gave you that climax and payoff you were expecting.

Assail is pretty much the biggest fuck you of the series considering how much foreshadowing was done in earlier Malazan books.

I would recommend trying the path to ascendancy books. I liked them quite a bit.

They're very different in style and scope. Relatively short, focused on a few POVs and more Young Adult in nature. The pacing and book length gets a bit in the way though, meaning that significant Malazan historic moments breeze by a bit too quickly, when the reader potentially wants more, much more.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 02 March 2021 - 11:13 AM

2

#3 User is offline   ContrarianMalazanReader 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 12-October 20

Posted 02 March 2021 - 06:00 AM

 Aptorian, on 02 March 2021 - 05:03 AM, said:


Assail is pretty much the biggest fuck you of the series considering how much foreshadowing was done in earlier Malazan books.

I would recommend trying the path to ascendancy books. I liked them quite a bit.



I agree with you on Assail. The early books in the series (MoI and MT in particular) make such a big deal out of the continent of Assail, they are always prattling about how dangerous and inhospitable the place is, like when the Errant is told Iron Bars has been to Assail he is in awe of Iron Bars, and in MoI they mention this big war going on in the continent. All that build-up for what? A whole lot of nothing. By itself, Assail is an OK book, but after all that foreshadowing ended up being more narrative misdirection on the authors' behalf, which is another pet peeve I have with the books.

Right now I'm reading the Dune books by Frank Herbert which have me genuinely hooked, so I might give PtA a try later on.
0

#4 User is offline   Gorefest 

  • Witness
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,975
  • Joined: 29-May 14
  • Location:Sheffield

Posted 02 March 2021 - 10:58 AM

I know it isn't really a helpful comment, but I really found that the series was immensely rewarding on a reread. But of course that is a huge time investment, especially if the series didn't really click with you on a first read. A lot of the passages that I considered drawn-out or tedious on my first read (and I totally concur that there seemed to be a lot of those at the time) suddenly came to life on my re-read, due to a much better understanding of the world mythology and recognising the enormous amounts of foreshadowing which are laced through those passages. But I was only driven to do a reread because there was enough emotional baggage in the books for me already on a first read to make it worth my time. For many avid fans (including myself), the moment they fell in love with the series was through reading Deadhouse Gates (especially the Chain of Dogs) and/or Memories of Ice. But obviously neither of those books sit high on your preference list, so Erikson's approach to building an emotional arc and laying out the history of a specific area may just not resonate with you. I personally was particularly awestruck by the layers upon layers of history and civilisation that are slowly revealed throughout each book and how historical events impact on and recur in later times.



I would definitely echo Apt's recommendation for Path to Ascendancy, especially if you like Esslemont's work. I think the series is a lot more focussed and covers the same areas and characters as encountered particularly in RotCG. My main peeve with the PtA series is the retconning and the almost obsessive tendency to try and cram in practically every bit character from the main two series under some pseudonym to gratuitously milk the 'exciting reveal' sentiment. but other than that, the books are lots of fun.
Yesterday, upon the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. Oh, how I wish he'd go away.
0

#5 User is offline   ContrarianMalazanReader 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 12-October 20

Posted 02 March 2021 - 05:16 PM

I've read several posts online from people who claim they couldn't make it past the first few chapters of GotM and gave up, but read DG and really enjoyed it. I had the opposite problem, as I really enjoyed GotM, don't see why it's so hard to read as many claim, whilst I consider DG to be the weakest book in the series. As tragic as the Chain of Dogs is, I frankly didn't care about it, although it did make me hate Mallick Rel with a passion, and Felisin's story in the otataral mines is undoubtedly one of the most unpleasant things I've ever read, and agree with what Ganoes says in MoI, it would have been far more merciful for Tavore to just execute her and spare her the agony.

I've done a bit of a re-read and have noticed a lot of stuff I missed the first time around, which indeed does enhance the books. However the parts I didn't like the first time around have not been improved by the re-read, NoK remains the most redundant book in the series, and book one of HoC, which explores Karsa Orlong's origins remains every bit as tedious and boring as the first time, I gave DG a second try and it hasn't improved either.
0

#6 User is offline   D'rek 

  • Consort of High House Mafia
  • Group: Super Moderators
  • Posts: 14,599
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location::

Posted 04 March 2021 - 05:30 AM

I obviously fell in love with the series or I wouldn't have been on this forum for so long (or be here still), and I've re-read it 4 or 5 times... but yeah, I still empathize with a lot of your feelings on it. I'm not quite as fond of the whole series in its entirety as I once was, only certain aspects, and I haven't actually re-read any of the books front-to-back in years... I don't really feel the impulse to do so anymore like I once did.

And I'm glad you laid out the specifics of what you did and didn't like:

Quote

Now I want to talk about what I liked about the books. First and foremost the discussions about the relationship between the human and the divine, the musings on civilization and how humans alter ecosystems to accommodate our needs, the questions about identity, the world building, the glimpses of civilizations past, the various myths and legends amongst different cultures, unsolved mysteries that illustrate the fragmented nature of history. Those pretty neat.

What I didn't like about the books is: the idle banter between the Malazan military, dialogue between characters that is so lacking in believability it leaves me wondering "who talks like this", the battles between armies which I frankly considered the most boring part of the books, the way stories diverge and branch out so far and wide to the extent that many are left out and never brought up again, characters who simply disappear from narrative in the most unsatisfying way and are never revisited, and finally there are many times when reading these books feels like a chore.


...'cause what's interesting to me is that other people have said the exact opposite - liking all the things you didn't like the most while finding the things you did like tedious.

The Malazan series is definitely... a lot. Two different writers, shifting writing styles, constant setting changes, a bajillion different themes and purposes that get dropped and added all throughout, and let's not pretend that the later books are waaaay more into philosophical/existential musing while the earlier books are waaay more into more typical lore-building with rules and structures and whatnot.

Maybe that means that the Malazan series has a little something for everyone. But that also probably makes it harder for someone to love the series as a whole, because odds are there's going to be aspects of it that you don't like, too.

View Postworrywort, on 14 September 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I kinda love it when D'rek unleashes her nerd wrath, as I knew she would here. Sorry innocent bystanders, but someone's gotta be the kindling.
2

#7 User is offline   ContrarianMalazanReader 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 12-October 20

Posted 04 March 2021 - 06:41 AM

I would say that I liked many of the ideas presented in the books more than I enjoyed the books themselves.


I want to point out one thing that bothers me, not about the books, but about fans of the books and the many writers endorsing the series on websites. The overwhelmingly enthusiastic praise heaped upon the series rubs me the wrong way, as it borders on a cult-like devotion, with statements like how nothing compares to MBotF, that the books changed my life for the better, or that even though it may be a bit of a slog the payoff is ultimately worth it. I felt no such thing beyond the satisfaction of reading the whole thing. Such a comment will cause these fans to get all defensive, as if you have to be every bit as fervent about the books as they are.

Thankfully, the board members on these forums are levelheaded people unlike the lunatics vouching for the book series online.
1

#8 User is offline   Aptorian 

  • How 'bout a hug?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 24,778
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 04 March 2021 - 06:58 AM

Oh, you should have been here during the mid 00's, it could get pretty heated when somebody came in here and claimed to like this or that series more than Malazan.

I believe it was expressed at some point that people on Goodreads or some other site thought we were a bunch of elitest assholes. Which we took as a badge of honour. Erikson at one point referred to us as the scary mob.
0

#9 User is offline   Gorefest 

  • Witness
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,975
  • Joined: 29-May 14
  • Location:Sheffield

Posted 04 March 2021 - 12:26 PM

 ContrarianMalazanReader, on 04 March 2021 - 06:41 AM, said:

I would say that I liked many of the ideas presented in the books more than I enjoyed the books themselves.


I want to point out one thing that bothers me, not about the books, but about fans of the books and the many writers endorsing the series on websites. The overwhelmingly enthusiastic praise heaped upon the series rubs me the wrong way, as it borders on a cult-like devotion, with statements like how nothing compares to MBotF, that the books changed my life for the better, or that even though it may be a bit of a slog the payoff is ultimately worth it. I felt no such thing beyond the satisfaction of reading the whole thing. Such a comment will cause these fans to get all defensive, as if you have to be every bit as fervent about the books as they are.

Thankfully, the board members on these forums are levelheaded people unlike the lunatics vouching for the book series online.


To be honest, I believe that for most projects of this nature (books, TV series, films, games, etc) you will always find a subsection of extremely devout followers who will militantly hunt down anyone who dares to disagree with their personal viewpoint. It is usually a small minority, but they also tend to be the most vocal due to their emotional attachment to the subject. There are very few online public spaces where I have not encountered this (from football to music to movie sites). I fully appreciate that it can be very frustrating if you want to 'objectively' discuss a topic to get shouted down by fanatical devotees. But it isn't exclusive to this series, you see the same for GoT or WoT.

As a general rule, if you don't like something you usually don't bother discussing it, so almost by default any online forums and chatrooms dedicated to a specific topic will be predominantly populated by people who care about that topic. I'm not sure it is fair to hold the conduct of a subgroup of fans against the source material. If anything, if the Malazan series manages to elicit such passionate response from certain people, surely that can only be a recommendation to the series as a whole and an indication that, at least for some people, it really resonates hugely, instead of seeing that as a negative thing just because it hampers your personal opportunities to express your opinion?

Yesterday, upon the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. Oh, how I wish he'd go away.
1

#10 User is offline   ContrarianMalazanReader 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 12-October 20

Posted 04 March 2021 - 07:08 PM

One thing I find surprising is that, considering the richness in world building and themes, there's practically no references or allusions to MBotF in other works of fiction. For example, long before Game of Thrones made its debut on HBO I do recall a few references being made to A Song of Ice and Fire being made in video games, and the one property I think most resembles MBotF are the Dragon Age games, at least superficially as there are some similarities, like the ruins of long forgotten civilisations, the eluvians which could be seen as analogous to the warrens, and finally magic in the world of DA is strictly regulated and outright prohibited in many parts of the world, which mirrors the ban on magic imposed by Empress Laseen during her reign, but then again I could be mistaken and am simply seeing things that aren't there, and you are welcome to correct me on it.

That being said, the books do have a strong RPG vibe which shouldn't come as a surprise as Erikson and Esslemont thought up the world of Malaz by playing Dungeons & Dragons.
0

#11 User is offline   Azath Vitr (D'ivers 

  • Ascendant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 3,029
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 04 March 2021 - 07:27 PM

 ContrarianMalazanReader, on 04 March 2021 - 07:08 PM, said:

One thing I find surprising is that, considering the richness in world building and themes, there's practically no references or allusions to MBotF in other works of fiction. For example, long before Game of Thrones made its debut on HBO I do recall a few references being made to A Song of Ice and Fire being made in video games, and the one property I think most resembles MBotF are the Dragon Age games, at least superficially as there are some similarities, like the ruins of long forgotten civilisations, the eluvians which could be seen as analogous to the warrens, and finally magic in the world of DA is strictly regulated and outright prohibited in many parts of the world, which mirrors the ban on magic imposed by Empress Laseen during her reign, but then again I could be mistaken and am simply seeing things that aren't there, and you are welcome to correct me on it.

That being said, the books do have a strong RPG vibe which shouldn't come as a surprise as Erikson and Esslemont thought up the world of Malaz by playing Dungeons & Dragons.


'They started with Dungeons & Dragons, but soon found the game system "too mechanical and on occasion nonsensical" so they moved on to GURPS (the Generic Universal Roleplaying System), which offered the spontaneous narrative flexibility they were looking for. Although role-playing games tend to be designed with the idea that a single referee guides the actions of multiple players through an adventure scenario, Erikson and Esslemont played one-on-one sessions with each alternating as referee and player.[1][2] Erikson says he ran a "very narrative, dialogue-heavy, often action-less style of game" that forced characters into moral quandries.'

'Anomander Rake[14] -- The first character Erikson ever rolled up and played in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Erikson played the character through game after game and "lived and breathed the guy".[15] In his early adventures, Rake was paired up with Caladan Brood and T'riss, who were all played simultaneously by Erikson.'

https://malazan.fand..._Malazan_Series
1

#12 User is offline   LinearPhilosopher 

  • House Knight
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 1,795
  • Joined: 21-May 11
  • Location:Ivory Tower
  • Interests:Everything.

Posted 05 March 2021 - 07:17 PM

 Azath Vitr (D, on 04 March 2021 - 07:27 PM, said:

 ContrarianMalazanReader, on 04 March 2021 - 07:08 PM, said:

One thing I find surprising is that, considering the richness in world building and themes, there's practically no references or allusions to MBotF in other works of fiction. For example, long before Game of Thrones made its debut on HBO I do recall a few references being made to A Song of Ice and Fire being made in video games, and the one property I think most resembles MBotF are the Dragon Age games, at least superficially as there are some similarities, like the ruins of long forgotten civilisations, the eluvians which could be seen as analogous to the warrens, and finally magic in the world of DA is strictly regulated and outright prohibited in many parts of the world, which mirrors the ban on magic imposed by Empress Laseen during her reign, but then again I could be mistaken and am simply seeing things that aren't there, and you are welcome to correct me on it.

That being said, the books do have a strong RPG vibe which shouldn't come as a surprise as Erikson and Esslemont thought up the world of Malaz by playing Dungeons & Dragons.


'They started with Dungeons & Dragons, but soon found the game system "too mechanical and on occasion nonsensical" so they moved on to GURPS (the Generic Universal Roleplaying System), which offered the spontaneous narrative flexibility they were looking for. Although role-playing games tend to be designed with the idea that a single referee guides the actions of multiple players through an adventure scenario, Erikson and Esslemont played one-on-one sessions with each alternating as referee and player.[1][2] Erikson says he ran a "very narrative, dialogue-heavy, often action-less style of game" that forced characters into moral quandries.'

'Anomander Rake[14] -- The first character Erikson ever rolled up and played in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Erikson played the character through game after game and "lived and breathed the guy".[15] In his early adventures, Rake was paired up with Caladan Brood and T'riss, who were all played simultaneously by Erikson.'

https://malazan.fand..._Malazan_Series


As an avid dnd player myself, i find it incredible he can RP multiple characters in a 1 on 1 session
0

#13 User is offline   ContrarianMalazanReader 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 12-October 20

Posted 09 March 2021 - 12:59 AM

I think I can now express my views regarding Erikson and Esslemont in terms of storytelling, which have their pros and cons.

Erikson's approach to storytelling can be best described as "figure it out for yourself", which is also employed by Esslemont but to a lesser degree, however Erikson's insistence on being vague and refusing to clear up things becomes frustrating, especially in the latter books. Case in point, Ganoes Paran, after being elected High Fist of the Host in TBH he and his army completely disappear from the narrative and, apart from a brief cameo in TtH, we know absolutely nothing about what Ganoes and his army are up to. When Ganoes and co finally return in TCG, they do so in the most frustrating fashion. They're stationed somewhere, where exactly we aren't told, we are given absolutely no context of where they are or what they've been doing during their lengthy absence, IIRC there are throwaway lines about campaigning in the Empire's name and being summoned by the current Emperor with Ganoes ignoring such requests. The worst offender for me however is Felisin younger, she is left to be worshipped as Sha'ik reborn in this weird cult of cripples and disease-ridden people where she spends her time eating, drinking and fucking, and her story is never brought up again.

Then there's the characters whose POV are unknown, which works best for Anomander Rake but totally fails with Laseen. Based on her actions alone I despise Laseen, but at the same time I don't know what to make of her as we aren't even given a clue as to what makes her tick. Sure, we might not be granted access to Tavore's POV, but at least get a good sense of what drives her, on the other hand Tavore herself lacks believability as a character, with a grip on her emotions so tight it's inhuman, so much so that I have a hard time believing she had a girlfriend, her meticulous planning in freeing the Crippled God which I found ridiculous and her most annoying trait which is that she seems to know everything. Tavore Paran is equal parts well written and totally implausible as a character.

As Aptorian pointed out, Esslemont's books have unnecessary cliffhangers that lead nowhere, the worst offenders in that regard being RotCG, Ghelel's story is never brought up again, so no point in ending it with a cliffhanger in the epilogue, and OST, what was the point of Kiska returning to the Shores of Creation and why did she do so?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users