[The_Watcher]

I work in a bookstore in a small town where fluffy fantasy reigns, Mercedes Lackey rules here, nothing wrong with her, I read her, she's a good writer, but not my first choice. Not too many buyers of Erikson's works. I always try to suggest it. When someone came in asking for something different to read. I point out the Malazan books, they are gritty, great characters and some great battles - that make sense. He came back two weeks later and said he didn't care for them, too much war not enough character development.

I saw the problem a few hours later, most readers - around here at least - are lazy, they want everything spelled out for them, characters, plot, everything. Commercial fantasy writers are contributing to this as well in order to sell books. I hate that, this is intelligent writing, characters are complex, so are the stories, the battles are thought out. He was lazy in my opinion. What happened to the days when we had to use our imagination when it came to reading? Erikson assumes you are intelligent and writes that way, I love that. It gets the little gray cells moving, Tolkien wrote this way too, he didn't explain everything, he left a lot for the reader to think about, left a lot to the imagination.

I am curious about everyone's opinion.

[Silencer]

I agree completely - it truly is a series you have to do some thinking about, and I love this in a book. Whether you do this thinking during a read, or after, in your spare time. It's a shame that some people just enjoy reading where they don't have to think. I admit though, that not having to think can sometimes be refreshing, but only in a short interval.
And as for there not being much character development - that's rubbish. Although there is not as much in GotM, it really picks up later. Although in the series, it's not so much character development, as it is revelations about characters. Not too sure on the difference, really.


- as for asking about everyone's opinion, I think you might find general assent on these forums. As they are technically 'fan forums'.

[Aptorian]

Did he only read GotM, because it really would help people telling them that it all gets a lot better and a lot less confusing as you read further.

As for not enough character development. Weird. Perhaps it's because of Eriksons way of just showing the characters with out giving them the typical long introduction and pages long character info dump.

[Tancerz]

me and my brother are agree with the watcher, Malazan series i amazing

[Dancer+]

I disagree...er, no.

I agree.

The Malazan series is a series for the intelligent fantasy-inclined people out there, it's a marvellous masterpiece and should be adored across all countries as the best fantasy series this side of the city of masterful god fantasy writers, I am advised by prophets that they are second-to-none. But besides those select few, it should be hailed as the best.

I wish people had more patience with these things, and could appreciate the complexity and genre-breaking nature of this series. Memories of Ice in my opinion is one of the best books ever written that I've had the pleasure of reading.

On a final note: The Mystagogue oppugned the abeyance to fleer in the direction of the sidling Myope who was writing his flapdoodle opus.

[paladin]

i tell people to read through the first two books, and if they dont like it, they never will. im about 50/50 on converts.. people either love it or hate it

[Spindrift]

Peoples tastes differ, not everyone can be expected to like something. That guy might very well have been lazy, but he also might just not like the book. SE is not without flaws (blasphemy!).

[Dancer+]

Spindrift;234135 said:

Peoples tastes differ, not everyone can be expected to like something. That guy might very well have been lazy, but he also might just not like the book. SE is not without flaws (blasphemy!).

I agree. It depends on the person, my main gripe with people is they should broaden themselves and read intellectually and socially compelling work but it isn't for everyone. The books are too complex and don't tell you what to think, this is a negative point for a lot of people. I relish ambiguity but that is my personality.

I like going off on tangents, I don't mean everyone should read the books.

[Optimus Prime]

Yes, of course Erikson has flaws.

1. He can't write a book a month
2. He isn't my best friend who gives me the inside track to reading these books earlier
3. He has never gotten me laid. (*Special Note* Still holding out hope to bump into smoking hot girl who loves MBotF in the library)
4. He is bald

There...he isn't perfect

[End of Disc One]

The only way I can justify the character development thing is if he read A Song of Ice and Fire first. GRRM is brilliant with characters. Otherwise, I agree that the series takes commitment and is definitely not for lazy people. You have to put a lot in to the series, but the payoff is HUGE.

[Anotherminer]

Guess this thread is dead but would add my 2c.
"De Gustibus non est disputandum"
Which basically means there's no real argument for taste. That said I agree that SE is challenging, that's why I read him, but even my friend who turned me onto him (from GRRM I might add) grumps about 'issues' he has with the series from time to time. There is something to be said about the incredibly huge rotating cast of characters, and by rotating I mean sometimes you get the sense they are played by the same actor. This isn't unusual as it is very hard to define the 'voices' of so many different characters so when they are arch-typically similar it won't be unusual for them to sound the same-ish. I think what some think in terms of character development is having a few characters that you primarily follow, are central, and you see grow. SE's world view is much more anthropological and less HIS-storical, in that the characters while important almost move things, and by things I mean plot, almost accidentally, kinda like real people, and not so much from a THINGS WILL HAPPEN THIS WAY BECAUSE I AM THE MAIN CHARACTER way. People who gripe that there isn't 'enough character development' were the prima donna rpg-ers who always thought that their character was the frickin center of the universe and always got super p.o.'d and quit when they died while with SE, you get the sense that another one got rolled up and played in a hurry because there was a much bigger story OUT THERE.

ooops, rant, sorry.

[DarthRahl]

Anotherminer;236587 said:

Guess this thread is dead but would add my 2c.
"De Gustibus non est disputandum"
Which basically means there's no real argument for taste. That said I agree that SE is challenging, that's why I read him, but even my friend who turned me onto him (from GRRM I might add) grumps about 'issues' he has with the series from time to time. There is something to be said about the incredibly huge rotating cast of characters, and by rotating I mean sometimes you get the sense they are played by the same actor. This isn't unusual as it is very hard to define the 'voices' of so many different characters so when they are arch-typically similar it won't be unusual for them to sound the same-ish. I think what some think in terms of character development is having a few characters that you primarily follow, are central, and you see grow. SE's world view is much more anthropological and less HIS-storical, in that the characters while important almost move things, and by things I mean plot, almost accidentally, kinda like real people, and not so much from a THINGS WILL HAPPEN THIS WAY BECAUSE I AM THE MAIN CHARACTER way. People who gripe that there isn't 'enough character development' were the prima donna rpg-ers who always thought that their character was the frickin center of the universe and always got super p.o.'d and quit when they died while with SE, you get the sense that another one got rolled up and played in a hurry because there was a much bigger story OUT THERE.

ooops, rant, sorry.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here but there is tons of character development in this series, it just doesn't all happen in book.

I can see why people dislike this series. When I first read GoTM I didn't like the book at first because I had no idea who was who. Reading GoTM the second time I enjoyed the story 100% more. It really filled in a lot of holes, and I picked up on things that I didn't notice when reading it the first time through.

[Fiddler]

Then again, the american fantasy lit scene is a dead issue, they're still mostly wiping themselves clean after a harry potter book, it's the rare american (such as myself and other americans here) that reads excellent fiction. One could also postulate that those of us who enjoy erikson's writing just Don't Suck.

[Dancer+]

I think the series has a more realistic stance on character development, some books tend to overdo the character development.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

DarthRahl;250085 said:

I'm probably preaching to the choir here but there is tons of character development in this series, it just doesn't all happen in book.

I can see why people dislike this series. When I first read GoTM I didn't like the book at first because I had no idea who was who. Reading GoTM the second time I enjoyed the story 100% more. It really filled in a lot of holes, and I picked up on things that I didn't notice when reading it the first time through.

SE has a knack for lack of focus.

This is no disservice- on the contrary by not hand-holding our reading experience is more engrossing. It's like the difference between watching a movie about Yosemite, and actually going there. Sure, you can see all the same things, and you might not get as much explicit information out of the trip as you might from a movie, but the experience and act of discovery is the crux of the issue.

The thinking man's fiction.

[Gilgamesh1082]

Fiddler;250242 said:

One could also postulate that those of us who enjoy erikson's writing just Don't Suck.

I must agree.

Adjutant Stormy;251756 said:

The thinking man's fiction.

That's pretty much what I tell everyone when I suggest the series to them.

[Holsety]

Just because someone doesn't like Erikson I don't condemn them to stupidity, I kinda think there are different books for different people and not always for bad reasons. (there's no such thing as the perfect book for everyone)

I think the character development is sometimes kinda tough to get. For instance, one of my favorite changes in GOTM is how the siege at pale affects tattersail, but the thing is that we literally START Tattersail with a chapter about what's happened to her, and we have to untangle who she was up until then from who she is now.

Quote

There is something to be said about the incredibly huge rotating cast of characters, and by rotating I mean sometimes you get the sense they are played by the same actor. This isn't unusual as it is very hard to define the 'voices' of so many different characters so when they are arch-typically similar it won't be unusual for them to sound the same-ish.

I remember hearing that The Iliad was one of SE's biggest influences. I always figured that the "archetypal" characters were in part influenced by The Iliad and maybe other works of the greeks during the hellenic period, which tended towards archetypes (though almost always very strongly positive and heroic).

[Cain]

Ive been trying to get several people reading this series. One of my college buddies is big on fantasy/epic fantasy stories so he tried it out first. Confusing in GoTM but then he came to read it almost faster than I did. : P

Then my Sergeant read it said the same thing.

And my supply sergeant is loving it now too.

I think the people who read it just need to be fairly smart people or they will not be able to grasp the complexity of this story.

[vrai]

I would rather like to see Harold Bloom's opinion of the series.

The New York Times had him try to write a review of the Harry Potter books, and he was not kind. He was not even pleasant. He was outright nasty.

What the heck, he wasn't not wrong, he just used a sledgehammer when a flyswatter would do.

And he hasn't been short of correspondance since.

I saw the initial reviews via the Salon website. I haven't regretted the time I've spent reading these books instead of the 50 greatest (as per The Globe and Mail), but my ideas of entertainment swing more towards this stuff than the generic fantasies from the last thirty years.

Consider what Neal Stephenson said about his relative fame, that as many people knew and appreciated his work as those who knew and appreciated the major of Des Moines. And he was happy enough with that fame. (This predates 'The Baroque Cycle').

[Crimson Dragoon]

My opinion on the Malazan series is that at first, you get the feeling that there's a lot of info thrown at you and can't get your bearings. But as you go on, you can see the pieces fall into place, bit by bit, and you start to see the bigger picture. With this series, a bit of persistence can go a long way.