[Barstool Blues]

I've recently started reading the books these last two months. I'm on book 7 now. As far as Gardens of the Moon goes...it WAS hard to get into. I probably took more time reading the first 1/3rd of it then I did some of the novels entirely. Basically I think the problem is that everything is just convoluted and confusing. Information is just thrown at you with little to no explanation. What are warrens? What's with the names of characters? Everything is just so confusing. Eventually you do find out all these things in later novels obviously, but as a first novel it's probably not a good idea to start on such an utterly confusing note. I can see why some people would quit (though I would recommend otherwise) after the first 3rd of the book.

[Tyr]

It just never got enjoyable. It was a chore to read and it was boring. There was not a single character to care about nor was there anything interesting happening. The main plot (which I am going to assume is Raest) took forever to come about and meanwhile we have to trudge through all this boring shit to get to it. It was as if SE wrote the novel for himself to read rather than other people.

I cannot even stress how huge an improvement DG was compared to this convoluted piece of garbage.

[Use Of Weapons]

 Tyr, on 01 June 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

It just never got enjoyable. It was a chore to read and it was boring. There was not a single character to care about nor was there anything interesting happening. The main plot (which I am going to assume is Raest) took forever to come about and meanwhile we have to trudge through all this boring shit to get to it. It was as if SE wrote the novel for himself to read rather than other people.

I cannot even stress how huge an improvement DG was compared to this convoluted piece of garbage.

Can I ask how old you were when you read it for the first time? And what's your normal reading style?

It seems to me that many of the posters who were unwilling to grant GotM a degree of latitude when it comes to revealing the plot and clearing up confusions are either coming to it quite young or with a lack of exposure to fiction/fantasy literature that comes from a fairly recent introduction to it, at any age. Or they are careful readers, not skimming and expecting by dint of their attention to be able to understand what they are reading. Which is understandable, but inevitably frustrating with a work like GotM.

This isn't necessarily truth, and certainly isn't scientifically rigorous, but it's the impression I've got from seeing a lot of similar posts.

[Tyr]

 jitsukerr, on 01 June 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

It seems to me that many of the posters who were unwilling to grant GotM a degree of latitude when it comes to revealing the plot and clearing up confusions are either coming to it quite young or with a lack of exposure to fiction/fantasy literature that comes from a fairly recent introduction to it, at any age.

It was not just the plot and all the convoluted garbage that made it a bad book. There were no characters to care about; infact there was nothing to care about. Just when you thought "cool, this Caladan Brood guy seems pretty interesting", we jump back to the hundredth assassin fight on the rooftops.

Regardless, if the mass majority of people do think this book is a bad one, then maybe it is. Maybe there are only a select few who actually did enjoy it and were able to digest the garbage thrown that way. Other readers like me are far more fastidious and reading GotM was just painful. Whoever edited this made a painful mistake in allowing it to be published the way it was. It is just lucky that there were a few people who did enjoy it and allowed the Malazan world to grow..

I am new to the fantasy genre (so your point does stand) but I have read many, many other novels over many other genres and GotM is probably one of the worst I have ever read (excluding all of those novels which are utter abominations).

I have nothing but praise for DG and nothing but criticism for GotM.

[worry]

I'm not sure that post was condescending enough. Give it another shot, and really go for it this time.

[Ilona]

I can't remember having trouble reading GotM - well, except for the fact that I started it at an airport, which isn't the best environment to be trying to get lost in a book in, considering I also had to pay attention to time and other trivial things in order to not miss my flight. But that's external, nothing to do with the book itself.

[Use Of Weapons]

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

 jitsukerr, on 01 June 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

It seems to me that many of the posters who were unwilling to grant GotM a degree of latitude when it comes to revealing the plot and clearing up confusions are either coming to it quite young or with a lack of exposure to fiction/fantasy literature that comes from a fairly recent introduction to it, at any age.

It was not just the plot and all the convoluted garbage that made it a bad book. There were no characters to care about; infact there was nothing to care about. Just when you thought "cool, this Caladan Brood guy seems pretty interesting", we jump back to the hundredth assassin fight on the rooftops.

Then you need to read more, and accept that multiple-POV novels won't always spend the time you want with the characters you want or are coming to care about. I really don't invest in characters quickly, either, but there were a number of interesting and potentially interesting characters early in the GotM narrative (Paran, Tattersail, Hairlock, Whiskeyjack, Lorn, Sorry). I didn't mind being jerked away from any of them as I was interested to see what the new one would do next.

Reading other fiction is not good preparation for reading fantasy, as multiple-POV writing (especially with a very large cast, such as we find in GotM and most other door-stopper fantasy series) is extremely rare outside of the genre. It can be a very odd experience for a newcomer to the genre to find themselves having to make sense of being jerked about so (to them) violently, while at the same time trying to piece together the clues that make the constructed universe make sense.

[Sinisdar Toste]

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

Regardless, if the mass majority of people do think this book is a bad one, then maybe it is.

A common belief...

*wonders if anyone will get the reference*

[Tyr]

 jitsukerr, on 02 June 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

Then you need to read more, and accept that multiple-POV novels won't always spend the time you want with the characters you want or are coming to care about. I really don't invest in characters quickly, either, but there were a number of interesting and potentially interesting characters early in the GotM narrative (Paran, Tattersail, Hairlock, Whiskeyjack, Lorn, Sorry). I didn't mind being jerked away from any of them as I was interested to see what the new one would do next.

Reading other fiction is not good preparation for reading fantasy, as multiple-POV writing (especially with a very large cast, such as we find in GotM and most other door-stopper fantasy series) is extremely rare outside of the genre. It can be a very odd experience for a newcomer to the genre to find themselves having to make sense of being jerked about so (to them) violently, while at the same time trying to piece together the clues that make the constructed universe make sense.

Care to explain why DG did the same thing yet it was a better book? The problem isnt the jumping around of POV's, its the fact that it jumps around to cardboard characters who have about as much life in them as a rock. Paran and Tattersail bored me to tears over and over again. It was the Daru crew who seemed to have life but also became quite stale very quickly. Bridgeburners.... what is there to care about. And the list goes on and on and on.

DG had the same problem, but to a far lesser extent. I didnt give 2 shits about Mappo or the Jaghut. I thought they were boring and that Iskaral carried their segment. Didnt care much for Fiddler or Kalam either. But damn was Felisin's story captivating. Damn the Chain of Dogs was glorious. At this point I can only say I enjoyed half the book, and that is leagues and leagues better than GotM.

And lets not forget the convoluted worldbuilding. Sure it was there in DG where it wasnt done gracefully and I felt my mind melting (the ship in the warren and when Felisin + Heboric go into that city?) but Gardens was non-stop dropping useless facts that werent expanded upon or werent explained and it just drove me nuts.

I also imagined that reading GotM was like reading an extremely long winded, overly complicated DnD novel. Cool Assassin fights on the rooftop. Cool uber mega boss coming to kill everyone. Cool "UNLEASH THE SEVEN WITHIN ME". Cool uber strong mega boss coming to kill everyone. Cool, Rake is actually a super duper dragon. I know it sounds stupid to mention this about a fantasy book, but in DG you could feel the loss of life, you could feel the struggle of the characters, and it was a much more human story than Gardens was..

Nothing can convince me Gardens was a good book. I went into that book with an open mind and when I was disappointed, I persevered. "It must get better," I kept telling myself, since it was so far into the book and the characters and plot should be developed by now; but it never got better. It was an abomination of a book.

This post has been edited by Tyr: 02 June 2011 - 11:40 PM

[MTS]

One wonders why you even bothered continuing onto DG when you found GotM to be such an 'abomination of a book.'

[Illuyankas]

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

Regardless, if the mass majority of people do think this book is a bad one, then maybe it is.

http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

Also check out the hyperbole article while you're there.

[Tyr]

 MTS, on 03 June 2011 - 01:15 AM, said:

One wonders why you even bothered continuing onto DG when you found GotM to be such an 'abomination of a book.'

Alot of the people who recommended the series said to stick around till book 3 then decide.

 Illuyankas, on 03 June 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

Regardless, if the mass majority of people do think this book is a bad one, then maybe it is.

http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

Also check out the hyperbole article while you're there.

I am not publishing an article in an academic journal. Learn to live with fallacious reasoning.

[Illuyankas]

I just want to point out that I do agree with you that GOTM is SE's worst book, even if I'm not as vehement about it as you are. I mean, I've read abominations. I've read Maggie Furey AND Trudi Canavan. And for a book that's a rewritten screenplay made years before the sequels, it's lacking in a lot of areas but it's not the antichrist of literature. That said, this shit?

 Tyr, on 03 June 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

I am not publishing an article in an academic journal. Learn to live with fallacious reasoning.

Cut that shit out. It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

(not calling him a fucking idiot, I'm saying he's using the argumental method of a fucking idiot and any inferences beyond that are your own)

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 03 June 2011 - 03:59 AM

[Orlion]

Wait, weren't there assasian fights in DG? Come to think of it, Tyr, there seemed to be everything in DG that you found disagreeable with GotM, so really, what is the difference? Have you ever re-read GotM? Could not be that DG was more enjoyable because you were somewhat use to the world at the time?

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

Cool "UNLEASH THE SEVEN WITHIN ME".

Well...I think you're on your own with that one.

[Use Of Weapons]

I think others have made the points I would have made, so suffice it to say that the fact that DG is a better book than GotM (which I freely admit) does not ipso facto relegate GotM to the realms of 'an abomination of a book'.

Actually, for me, the fact that you say you cared nothing for the relationship of Icarium and Mappo in DG speaks rather a great deal as to why you didn't enjoy GotM. The characterisation strategies in GotM are much more along the Mappo/Icarium line, of building, suggesting, hinting at a deep past but never showing, never revealing. DG has a lot more variety in characterisation (Coltaine, the Wickans in general, Duiker's POV for the whole of the Chain of Dogs, the trinity of Heboric/Felisin/Baudin being a completely different dynamic to Icarium/Mappo, and Heboric offering an historian's perspective like that of Duiker).

[Use Of Weapons]

 Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast, on 03 June 2011 - 08:33 AM, said:

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

Cool "UNLEASH THE SEVEN WITHIN ME".

Well...I think you're on your own with that one.

*snarf* Indeed

[Seatiger]

Definatly been a while since I read the first book. I do remeber having to do a double take of a few pages here and there to try and figure out just what was going on. I think the thing that stuck out to me was how often the book kept jumping between characters and starting to read SE books took time to get use to. After reading them for a while now I love it.

[Kanese S's]

 jitsukerr, on 02 June 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

 jitsukerr, on 01 June 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

It seems to me that many of the posters who were unwilling to grant GotM a degree of latitude when it comes to revealing the plot and clearing up confusions are either coming to it quite young or with a lack of exposure to fiction/fantasy literature that comes from a fairly recent introduction to it, at any age.

It was not just the plot and all the convoluted garbage that made it a bad book. There were no characters to care about; infact there was nothing to care about. Just when you thought "cool, this Caladan Brood guy seems pretty interesting", we jump back to the hundredth assassin fight on the rooftops.

Then you need to read more, and accept that multiple-POV novels won't always spend the time you want with the characters you want or are coming to care about. I really don't invest in characters quickly, either, but there were a number of interesting and potentially interesting characters early in the GotM narrative (Paran, Tattersail, Hairlock, Whiskeyjack, Lorn, Sorry). I didn't mind being jerked away from any of them as I was interested to see what the new one would do next.

Reading other fiction is not good preparation for reading fantasy, as multiple-POV writing (especially with a very large cast, such as we find in GotM and most other door-stopper fantasy series) is extremely rare outside of the genre. It can be a very odd experience for a newcomer to the genre to find themselves having to make sense of being jerked about so (to them) violently, while at the same time trying to piece together the clues that make the constructed universe make sense.

While I did find GotM really confusing and it took me a long time to finish it, that wasn't for lack of emotional investment in the characters. That I had no trouble at all with. For me it was more the fact that GotM just throws the reader into the middle of the action with no exposition whatsoever or really much background. The magic system was especially difficult. As well, it was unclear exactly who I was supposed to be rooting for, but then, that's the point.

[Kanese S's]

 Tyr, on 02 June 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

 jitsukerr, on 02 June 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

Then you need to read more, and accept that multiple-POV novels won't always spend the time you want with the characters you want or are coming to care about. I really don't invest in characters quickly, either, but there were a number of interesting and potentially interesting characters early in the GotM narrative (Paran, Tattersail, Hairlock, Whiskeyjack, Lorn, Sorry). I didn't mind being jerked away from any of them as I was interested to see what the new one would do next.

Reading other fiction is not good preparation for reading fantasy, as multiple-POV writing (especially with a very large cast, such as we find in GotM and most other door-stopper fantasy series) is extremely rare outside of the genre. It can be a very odd experience for a newcomer to the genre to find themselves having to make sense of being jerked about so (to them) violently, while at the same time trying to piece together the clues that make the constructed universe make sense.

Care to explain why DG did the same thing yet it was a better book?

Because I was used to Erikson's style by DG and so wasn't as confused by how all the various aspects of the world worked. Still a little confused, but mostly "Oh, they're inside a warren or something now. I think I sorta get how those work, seen it before." As well, I don't agree with the statement that DG was a better book. Very different in subject matter, but better? I don't know about that.

Quote

The problem isnt the jumping around of POV's, its the fact that it jumps around to cardboard characters who have about as much life in them as a rock. Paran and Tattersail bored me to tears over and over again. It was the Daru crew who seemed to have life but also became quite stale very quickly. Bridgeburners.... what is there to care about. And the list goes on and on and on.

You think they're cardboard characters? Really? I didn't have that reaction at all. I just don't really understand how you can think that about Tattersail, Paran, Sorry, etc.

Quote

DG had the same problem, but to a far lesser extent. I didnt give 2 shits about Mappo or the Jaghut. I thought they were boring and that Iskaral carried their segment. Didnt care much for Fiddler or Kalam either. But damn was Felisin's story captivating. Damn the Chain of Dogs was glorious. At this point I can only say I enjoyed half the book, and that is leagues and leagues better than GotM.

Odd. Maybe you just have trouble getting emotionally invested in characters, as I found Mappo and Icarium (who as I recall isn't a full Jaghut) immediately intriguing.

Quote

And lets not forget the convoluted worldbuilding. Sure it was there in DG where it wasnt done gracefully and I felt my mind melting (the ship in the warren and when Felisin + Heboric go into that city?) but Gardens was non-stop dropping useless facts that werent expanded upon or werent explained and it just drove me nuts.

Why would characters explain shit they already know about? If you want that obnoxious bullcrap, go read Tairy. Realistically, characters wouldn't be constantly explaining stuff they both know the basics of, especially not characters who know each other so well they can practically complete each other's sentences. I'd rather have less explained than I'd like than hear the same shit explained over and over again when I already get it.

Quote

I also imagined that reading GotM was like reading an extremely long winded, overly complicated DnD novel. Cool Assassin fights on the rooftop. Cool uber mega boss coming to kill everyone. Cool "UNLEASH THE SEVEN WITHIN ME". Cool uber strong mega boss coming to kill everyone. Cool, Rake is actually a super duper dragon. I know it sounds stupid to mention this about a fantasy book, but in DG you could feel the loss of life, you could feel the struggle of the characters, and it was a much more human story than Gardens was..

DG was a story with more easily identifiable heroes and villains and the struggle of the former than GotM was. DG obviously centered on Felisin, Heboric and Baudin's flight from captivity and even moreso on Coltaine's desperate march across Seven Cities. GotM was basically about a single incident in the Malazan Empire's military history that would probably be described as either a fiasco or a clusterfuck. Heroes and villains are quite a bit harder to pin down as such in GotM than in DG. It's more a grey area.

Quote

Nothing can convince me Gardens was a good book. I went into that book with an open mind and when I was disappointed, I persevered. "It must get better," I kept telling myself, since it was so far into the book and the characters and plot should be developed by now; but it never got better. It was an abomination of a book.

Then why even bother posting if you're going to come right out and say that the entire discussion is pointless? If your mind is made up and you refuse to consider any position that contradicts your own, why even bother?

This post has been edited by Kanese S's: 11 June 2011 - 07:32 PM