[Scudubydubop]

Hi all, I have yet to read any Malazan books, but have always been fascinated by its apparent complexity. After doing some digging around in search of reading orders, I've seen a pretty large consensus that reading the books in publication order is a bad idea. I'm not sure I understand why this is, as even in the spoiler-free reading order guide here on this forum, there's no red arrows that are crossed by reading it in pub order (with the exception of NoK I guess). What I've gathered is that the custom reading orders attempt to fix some awkward pacing, and long periods where certain plotlines aren't touched on. Is this a proper estimation? I also found Erikson's opinion on this, which I'll stick below. I would like to hear what the general consensus is on why or why not to change the publication read order, especially if it really comes down to certain specific books where you think the authors erred by publishing them in the order they did.



"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."

[Gorefest]

Not sure where you read that. Of course reading them in publication order is the correct way to do it. The only sensible discussion is where to place Esslemont's books within the Erikson arc, as the two writers are slightly out of pace. But the books should definitely all be read in the order in which they were published. Doing otherwise is like watching the Return of the King, then the fellowship of the ring, then the hobbit, then the two towers.

Anyone who says things like needing to start with e.g. midnight tides should be hung, drawn and quartered.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 26 December 2021 - 02:37 PM

[Scudubydubop]

 Gorefest, on 26 December 2021 - 02:34 PM, said:

Not sure where you read that. Of course reading them in publication order is the correct way to do it. The only sensible discussion is where to place Esslemont's books within the Erikson arc, as the two writers are slightly out of pace. But the books should definitely all be read in the order in which they were published. Doing otherwise is like watching the Return of the King, then the fellowship of the ring, then the hobbit, then the two towers.

Anyone who says things like needing to start with e.g. midnight tides should be hung, drawn and quartered.

Out of pace? What do you mean by that?

[Aptorian]

Certain events overlap one another between Erikson and Esslemont's books. As an example, one character died in one book and that death was spoiled because another book, set after the first book, was released earlier than expected.

[Scudubydubop]

 Aptorian, on 26 December 2021 - 02:59 PM, said:

Certain events overlap one another between Erikson and Esslemont's books. As an example, one character died in one book and that death was spoiled because another book, set after the first book, was released earlier than expected.

Huh, that does sound like a serious issue

[Scudubydubop]

Now I'm just curious as to why the authors didn't amend that when they've spoken about reading order, saying something like "read in pub order but X before Y"

[D'rek]

It's mainly just Return of the Crimson Guard and Stonewielder that make publication order wonky. It seems like they were supposed to be published a bit earlier, but just weren't. So for example there's a character that has some story in both Return of the Crimson Guard and Toll the Hounds, and the RotCG part clearly happens before the TtH part, so if you read in publication order it's like you read their future story first then go back in time to read their previous story (and not in an intentional flashback sort of way).

Reaper's Gale >> Return of the Crimson Guard >> Toll the Hounds >> Stonewileder >> Dust of Dreams ... just makes the most sensical narrative flow and is the most chronological order for those books.


Why do the authors stick to the answer of "publication order" then? Well, for better or for worse Erikson and Esslemont are not as, er, public-facing as some other fantasy authors that do blogs and lots of Q&As and AMAs, and whatnot, and they tend to shy away from delving into those sorts of fandom questions. You won't find them commenting on fanart of the series or expositing to fans about areas of the world the series won't visit, etc. It's not so much as that they have a particular reason for pushing publication order... it's probably more like they got asked about it one time, don't particularly care to think about it much and just gave the easy answer.

[worry]

IIRC Return of the Crimson Guard was published in its correct relative place ‘across the pond’ but was published late in North America? So there’s a geographic element to the confusion.

But D’rek has it right, so go with that.

[Zerv]

As I understand it, both Night of Knives and Return of the Crimson Guard were first published as limited editions by PS Publishing and the publication dates of these editions do in fact place them in a publication order that corresponds to the commonly agreed recommended reading order (that is, between Midnight Tides and The Bonehunters for NoK, and between Reaper's Gale and Toll the Hounds for RotCG), though this was not the case for the later 'regular' Tor and Bantam editions. Might also be worth noting that Gardens of the Moon wasn't actually published in the US until 2004 (same year MT was published in the UK) and US publications didn't catch up until 2008, so it's possible to get some wrong ideas about publication dates because of that too, I suppose. So, confusing publication history aside, publication order seems mostly fine if we look at the first editions published, at least with respect to just the main Malazan Book of the Fallen and Esslemont's Novels of the Malazan Empire, with the exception of Stonewielder noted upthread (and even then it wouldn't exactly be wrong to read it between Dust of Dreams and the Crippled God (the order of publication) if you somehow felt inclined to do so...but the ending of DoD will most likely leave you itching to pick up TCG right away, so better go with D'rek's order above).

That said, I don't think publication order is the best idea with the series Erikson and Esslemont have started after the completion of MBotF (Kharkanas, Path to Ascendancy, Witness). These series are not as closely related to each other as MBotF and NotME, so breaking up the flow by jumping back and forth between them for the sake of a couple of easter eggs is probably not going to be worth it. For example, Forge of Darkness was published between Orb, Sceptre, Throne and Blood and Bone, but I think there's a pretty good case for wrapping up NotME before proceeding to Kharkanas, especially since book three is not yet out. And once Kharkanas is finished there probably will be little sense in squeezing in Path to Ascendancy and the first Witness book between those either. Better to read one series at a time, as far as current publications allow, in my opinion (aside from MBotF and NotME, obviously).
To be clear, this isn't a case of the authors being wrong to release them the way they did, but simply a case of Erikson and Esslemont working on different projects set in the same world simultaneously. The closest case to books being released in the wrong order (aside from the shenanigans with the regular edition of RotCG) would be Erikson starting Witness before finishing Kharkanas (contrary to the original plan), but there are some specific reasons for this decision which Erikson explained in a blog post (it was a matter of his writing process rather than intended reading order), and it's not as if The God is Not Willing spoils the third Kharkanas book, it was simply delayed.

There's also a case for reading the Bauchelain and Korbal Broach novellas out of publication order, since Blood Follows, The Lees of Laughter's End and The Wurms of Blearmouth each pick up where the last left off, even though they are books 1, 3 and 5 in publication order (TLoLE is even placed as the second story in the first omnibus, even though The Healthy Dead was the second novella published). Publication order is still fine though, if you're okay with jumping back and forth on the timeline.
This is the only case of reordering entries within a series I would consider seriously, though you can probably find some highly questionable suggestions to rearrange the order of the main series if you venture into the wilds (Reddit). For instance, some people think it's a good idea to read Memories of Ice before Deadhouse Gates, probably because while these two books cover largely the same time-frame, DG takes place on a different continent from the first book, while MoI takes place on the same continent as the first book. However, there are numerous reasons why this is a bad idea (mysteries introduced in DG are answered in MoI, MoI references events in and assumes world knowledge from DG but not so much the reverse, etc.). Other suggestions to reorder the main books within MBotF are similarly or even more ill-advised, in my view.


Of course, if you're new to the series you won't have to worry about most of this for quite a while (and B&KB is completely optional).

[Salt-Man Z]

The biggest reason for reading the books in earliest original publication order is simply the fact that there is an ongoing dialogue between the two authors within their books. One author puts something down in their book, and then the other guy often does something with it in his next book. Exhibit A is, of course, SE taking time in Midnight Tides to check in on a handful of new characters from ICE's Night of Knives. This continues on into the post-MBotF books, with Forge of Darkness/Blood and Bone sharing Old Man (Moon). This is not to say that reading, for example, the entire Kharkanas Trilogy uninterrupted (once that becomes possible) is without merit, but there are definite upsides to strict publication order.

This post has been edited by Salt-Man Z: 22 March 2022 - 09:43 PM

[Abyss]

My $0.02CDN, publication order is bestest bcs reflects the authors' intent.

The sole exception is readingEsslemont's Return of the Crimson Guard before Erikson's Toll the Hounds, simply because RCG was published before TtH in error, in some places, and spoils parts of TtH.

[Zerv]

 Salt-Man Z, on 22 March 2022 - 09:41 PM, said:

The biggest reason for reading the books in earliest original publication order is simply the fact that there is an ongoing dialogue between the two authors within their books. One author puts something down in their book, and then the other guy often does something with it in his next book. Exhibit A is, of course, SE taking time in Midnight Tides to check in on a handful of new characters from ICE's Night of Knives. This continues on into the post-MBotF books, with Forge of Darkness/Blood and Bone sharing Old Man (Moon). This is not to say that reading, for example, the entire Kharkanas Trilogy uninterrupted (once that becomes possible) is without merit, but there are definite upsides to strict publication order.

True enough. Didn't intend to suggest that there was no upside whatsoever to strict publication order with regard to the post-MBotF series, just that I think the benefits are relatively small considering that they come at the cost of some fairly major disruption of narrative flow. But ultimately it's going to depend on your priorities (and possibly other factors, like reading speed), so plenty of room for reasonable disagreement.

[BAD]

The correct answer is you read Memories of Ice first. Like I did. As Deadhouse Gates front cover looked too epic for me and Gardens of the Moon cover looked rubbish.


Become completely enthralled but wonder wtf is going on.


Then you go back and start in publishing order as recommended.