Malazan books of the fallen

[nixie]

I enjoyed the Prince of Nothing series.Quickly become one of my favourites but it comes a poor second to Erikson.

 

[Green]

I think Bakker's stuff is more real than Erikson's. If you removed the Gnosis and all the rest, then it could just be some historical fantasy. Bakker's magic seems more real than Erikson's, though that does not necessarily make it more interesting - it is, imo, more beautiful. When you see it, you feel like you've earned it. I really love the imagery of pure white light coming out of a man's eyes and mouth as he performs the magic - a real sense that he is speaking the words of creation.

You spend a lot of time with Bakker's main characters (more than with most of Erikson's, though not all) and as a result you get to know them much better. Erikson hides his characters' pasts - this is not a flaw, really, because it adds to the reveal later on - but with Bakker you really get to know them from the outset.

I consider the two very different, and both are great. Certainly the two best fantasy series I have read (I'm not starting Martin until he's finished). I can't wait for the Aspect Emperor

 

[Thadlerian]

Maybe thats the main problem with Bakker. His characters are all a bit too similar...

That might be so. At least when you move away from the main characters; the surrounding Great Names tend to become rather static. But characters like Kellhus, Cnaïur, Esmenet, Achamian and Serwë seem so fleshed out; they're allowed to show strong emotions (even Kellhus, every now and then, near the end of W-P).

To me, this is more of an issue with Erikson. I have an hard time telling his characters apart. They're so occupied with doing, they don't have time for being. They're told apart by what they do, but their actions are often just reactions to what is being imposed upon them from the outside. It's hard to tell whether they are making real choices. When you get under the skin of one of them, it's hard to tell who it is. They talk much the same way: They always growl. Alternately grunt. Perhaps this is how years of war affects people, but I feel that Erikson has grown a little too fond of this character type, this seen-it-all fighter growling dry remarks, sitting by the campfire.

I think Green put very well what it is about Bakker that more than everything attracts me: The beauty. It sure is a gritty series, but every now and then you glimpse beauty, like in the Achamian-Esmenet relationship, or his open, honest friendship with Xinemus, or the spots of clarity and reason underneath Cnaïur's inhuman madness. Or, as Green mentions, the Gnosis, the way it works, blending metaphor and metaphysics.

Erikson is cool. Damn cool. But there's never simple beauty. There can be grand scenes, like the aforementioned T'lan Imass scene, that touch you. But Bakker has a certain skill for allowing for little moments of simple, innocent beauty, like Achamian and Esmenet walking around the encampments, holding hands like teenagers. Simple beauty doesn't need to be antithetic to grittiness, something China Miéville has already demonstrated (at least in The Scar).

 

[Karsa Orlong]

After reading the aforementioned three books, I have found Erikson's characters rather hard to relate to emotionally. It's hard to tell the difference, even between main characters. Whenever they speak, they growl. Or grunt. That's about as far under the skin as we get.

Hmmm, that's a rather almighty generalisation, methinks. I have to question the idea that it's hard to tell the difference between most of Erikson's characters; if you can't distinguish Kruppe from Quick Ben from Karsa from Icarium from Tool from Pearl from Apsalar from Anomander Rake from Coltaine from etcetcetc you must have the attention span of a gnat. There are certainly noticeable similarities between certain sets of characters from similar backgrounds, for example a lot of the soldiers have that similar gritty, cynical feel to their personalities, but I imagine those would evolve naturally in that environment. Same goes for the certain similarities between, say, Rake and Brood, or Kalam and Quick Ben, who've known one another for decades or even centuries and longer - this to me holds has no logical inconsistency with Erikson's world.

I'll grant you that there are a *few* characters who whilst being relevant to the plot don't stand out as being that interesting or different, but even that isn't necessarily a flaw in my eyes - what kind of world doesn't have people like that? I think the fact that plotlines are usually focused on an interesting and enclosed set of events, which are generally made interesting by the characters that these events revolve around, has led us to depend on every single character being incredibly different and unique - Erikson's plotline is virtually his whole world, however, so there are always going to be a few people encompassed who aren't perhaps special in any obvious manner. Sometimes people with samey personalities can do amazing things, or actions relevant to amazing events, and when you're focusing on such a massive array of characters, there are likely to be a few in there who fit that description. Just a thought, and not really a fully formed one, so don't hold me to it.

A further aspect of Erikson's work is that because his plot is so sprawling and so much of his world is encompassed, any single one of his characters is perhaps less significant than in the majority of other fiction simply because he or she is just painting their own layer onto this vast canvas of a history rather than on a simple enclosed story - however important a part they play, they're never going to be that significant in the grand scheme of things. This is a massively appealing and in fact a very human idea to me, but I've sadly found it puts plenty of people off.

Still, I find it very easy to relate to quite a few of Erikson's characters, and those books frequently have me in tears, whilst Bakker only occasionally moved me to that extent - I guess we just have different personalities. Bakker's work is probably more obviously passionate than Erikson's, but in an OTT tone which often serves as an obstacle to me - it just doesn't feel natural somehow, whereas Erikson's tone is full of what's best described as "understated pathos" despite his flowery style and that resonates with me far more easily. Whilst Erikson's work maybe isn't necessarily so *directly* emotionally involving I find that emotional involvement to generally be more maturely and subtly rendered, such as in a simple piece of wonderful humour placed perfectly in contrast to brutality unfolding all around, or in implicit emotions that aren't in any way made blatant by the writer, etcetc. It all feels more *human* to me.

As for the magic, well, I'm not all that interested in magical systems to be perfectly honest, but I agree that Bakker does it well. Erikson keeps his magic ambiguously defined, it's more of a presence and at times almost a symbol than it is any physically defined thing, and there's something beautiful in that as well as far as I'm concerned. Again, each to their own I suppose.

 

[Karsa Orlong]

^Note that you hadn't posted your last post when I posted this one.

I'll see if your latest post requires an extra reply.

 

[Karsa Orlong]

They're so occupied with doing, they don't have time for being. They're told apart by what they do, but their actions are often just reactions to what is being imposed upon them from the outside. t's hard to tell whether they are making real choices. When you get under the skin of one of them, it's hard to tell who it is.

Interestingly, I've talked about their personalities often unfolding as actions before, but in praise rather than criticism. I don't want to turn this into a philosophical argument, but I question whether anybody differs from this - to me this just makes the books more human. I may well not be a believer in the existence of "real choices" in the sense you mean - again, personality differences between us may be key here.

They talk much the same way: They always growl. Alternately grunt. Perhaps this is how years of war affects people, but I feel that Erikson has grown a little too fond of this character type, this seen-it-all fighter growling dry remarks, sitting by the campfire.

I agree that maybe there's a *bit* too much grunting and growling going on in Erikson, although as you say I think the world and its atmosphere maybe logically lead to that. I reckon Bakker and nearly all other authors overuse some things too though, I find some of the flowery passages of philosophical contemplation to be virtually indistinguishable from character to character and not very naturally integrated, for example, and there's always that bloody emphasis everywhere regardless of character (or even from the narrator).

I think Green put very well what it is about Bakker that more than everything attracts me: The beauty. It sure is a gritty series, but every now and then you glimpse beauty, like in the Achamian-Esmenet relationship, or his open, honest friendship with Xinemus, or the spots of clarity and reason underneath Cnaïur's inhuman madness. Or, as Green mentions, the Gnosis, the way it works, blending metaphor and metaphysics. Erikson is cool. Damn cool. But there's never simple beauty.

Ahh. I find some of Bakker's work beautiful if not generally to the point of being in love with it, I'm certainly not trying to take that away from him - like I've said he's one of my favourite authors. But actually there are many, many simply beautiful scenes in Erikson's work, at least for me. What you seem to be describing as wonderful in Bakker is honestly exactly what I would describe my many favourite parts of Erikson as. I have several of these copied down, though mostly from House of Chains and onwards as that's where I started doing it, so I won't spoil them for you. There's a conversation between Trull and Onrack which is the definition of simple beauty, absolutely heart-breakingly so, I still remember it word for word. There are several involving Karsa and Samar Dev, there's one I recall between Trull and a demon even, which just made me gaze at the page and re-read the texts with all sorts of complex emotions stirring inside me. These are just a few which spring to mind, there were many more. I find Icarium's relationship and situation with Mappo to be a thing of almost unbearable beauty, I find many very simple and beautiful themes like motherly love or burdens of duty to be explored in incredibly emotional ways by Erikson, I find his of use of humour to occasionally be deeply beautiful in a way I would call simple. Perhaps they're more prevalent in the later books and that's why you don't seem to feel the same, I can't say I've noticed that to be honest, but I know that I loved books two and three arguably as much as later books so I don't know... Still, I honestly feel Erikson has simple, quiet beauty in abundance, as well as the rousing, epic scenes of heroism and the like which you speak of.

 

[Green]

This isn't much of a criticism or comparison with Bakker, I just thought I'd bring this up.

Something I mentioned in a review of TBH was that Erikson is probably the master of multiple POVs, but he has so many main characters in his latest book that he doesn't have the time or the space to give them anything real to do. We end up with endlessly-jumping POVs within chapters, particularly at Y'Ghatan. Fortunately, as you say, his plot is virtually the whole deal, so it isn't disaster time. I do feel that he may be letting things unravel somewhat (some of his characters have become stale or evolved too far from where they started), and I hope it doesn't continue into Reaper's Gale.

 

[Karsa Orlong]

Something I mentioned in a review of TBH was that Erikson is probably the master of multiple POVs, but he has so many main characters in his latest book that he doesn't have the time or the space to give them anything real to do. We end up with endlessly-jumping POVs within chapters, particularly at Y'Ghatan.

I think that, because I read that one in only a couple of sittings, I was able to follow it relatively easily and get my head around all the characters and it all swept me along quite nicely, but I can imagine if I was reading it over a longer period the ridiculous amount of characters at Y'Ghatan in particular would irritate and confuse me somewhat. Maybe it's aimed at a certain type of reader, in that respect, or maybe he can just get a bit over-ambitious on occasion - either way it didn't detract significantly from my personal experience of the book.

I disagreed with certain aspects of your review (I've just had a look again) regarding the second part of your post about characters stagnating or changing unrealistically. For example I found the Karsa sections enjoyable as ever and at times very beautiful - your criticism is actually part of his charm for me, the sense of him converging upon an inevitable destination - I'll stop talking now though because I'm trying to avoid spoilers with these posts.

 

[Green]

I read the Y'Ghatan section in one sitting, and thought it was badly done.

As to the stagnating of characters - well, during HoC, Karsa Orlong went from ignorant, raping, arrogant barbarian to something quite remarkable. During TBH, he did nothing. He just trundled along. He was given so little to do that we barely even saw him from his own POV. We saw him from that woman's, can't remember her name now, and she offered little other than to go, "Wow, I thought he was a mindless savage. Perhaps not..." which is just same old, same old with Karsa Orlong. The woman herself was more interesting. Which isn't saying much. There was little, if any, growth of Orlong (that sounds filthy). And it was a waste of a great character.

And those who have evolved too much... well, I could name a few, but you read my review.

 

[Karsa Orlong]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, though again, after his initial quite remarkable changes I don't think he would, realistically speaking, continue to change at that sort of rate. So I think the emphasis necessarily had to move on from being on the evolution of Karsa's character to being on his gradual convergence upon his destination (not just his dream of leading a Teblor army but the more immediate destination built up for by The Bonehunters) - it seems like his story arc is building up to a bang. Whether he could've done more with the build up... well, as I said before I found many of the sections with him and Samar Dev (the woman you're talking about) to be extremely beautiful even if their fundamental relationship was somewhat typical, so I'm happy with how he wrote it.

What you say about Cotillion is true, though I'm not sure we've seen the last of the side he showed in GotM, and I think there was always a somewhat pantomimish aspect to that duo from the outset, though perhaps from Shadowthrone moreso.

In fairness, those are the only two characters you criticise in your review aren't they?

 

[Green]

SPOILERS
*******

I can't remember, actually... but I would add in Crokus (what the hell happened to him? You can keep your Cutter, Mr. Erikson... actually, you should have just let him die in the desert) as a character who lost the plot.

I would mention Quick Ben as a character going nowhere - we learned a very little more about him in TBH (he has a sister), but his main role was to dither and fret while other, less interesting characters (I'm thinking Bottle, here, but it might be someone else) get more of the limelight. Quick Ben has a world of knowledge in his head, and lifetimes of stories to tell, but we never get to hear them.

At least Erikson knew that Kalam had run his course, but I wish he had the balls to let him actually die. Same with Hedge, and even with Whiskeyjack - what's the need for a younger sister? Maybe she will be more interesting in later books, but so far serves only to keep her brother's memory alive in the reader's mind.

My major gripe with TBH's characters, which I did mention in my review, was that all of the fourteenth is just stuck in mud for about half the book. Nothing has moved on from HoC for these characters, and he wastes half a book on them plodding along.

All of which probably sounds like I'm completely disenfranchised with the whole series, but not really. If the trend carried on into the next book, I would be more worried. I am looking forward to getting back with the Edur properly, and I love the story so much that it would be hard for it to be ruined at this point. Famous last words.

 

[Werthead]

The Bonehunters is easily the weakest book in the series, although a long way from being a really bad book overall. It's a fragmented book, the second half feels disconnected from the first and it doesn't have much cohesion. It feels more episodic than the previous books and it's the first one which really doesn't work as a stand-alone novel (HoC came close at times, but you can just about manage it without reference to the others).

Spoiler

The Thousandfold Thought I enjoyed, but I felt that Bakker wrapped things up a bit too quickly and for the final book of a trilogy it really had a lot of inexplicable cliffhangers. Fair enough that the No-God, the Inchoroi and the Consult are all left hanging for The Aspect-Emperor, but just fading out on Cnaiur and Moenghus was a bit lame, and we never found out what Saubon was up to (was it a set-up by Kelhus to kill Conphas, or just coincidence that Saubon changed his mind and showed up at that point?).

Despite some disappointment with AFFC, I still rate Martin above both. His characters are stronger than Bakker's. Bakker commits the cardinal sin, although he tries to avoid it harder, that Erikson does by giving many of his characters a similar voice and a tendency to philosophise at any given opportunity. Martin's much surerer grasp on the truth of his characters means that they feel far more like individuals than either Bakker or Erikson (although both are still much better at this than most epic fantasy writers). I also feel that occasionally Bakker and much more often Erikson are in danger of wrecking their stories through some impressive display of magical power that is actually rather silly compared to the harsh grittiness elsewhere of their created worlds, and the same presence of high magic means it's very easy to create magical DXM solutions to major plot problems. Given the low-magic nature of Martin's world, that is more easily avoided.

When I was recently re-reading the series, it did occur to be that Paul Kearney's excellent Monarchies of God series (highly recommended by Erikson) is very much a lighter version of Bakker with better battles but less philosophy, although an equal need to address the truth or reality of what happens in warfare (the village scene in the fourth volume, The Second Empire, remains a harrowing depiction of the effect of pragmatic military decisions on a civilian population).

 

[Karsa Orlong]

I can't remember, actually... but I would add in Crokus (what the hell happened to him? You can keep your Cutter, Mr. Erikson... actually, you should have just let him die in the desert) as a character who lost the plot.

Agreed. In fact, I never cared for Crokus in the first place, so he can pretty much sod off all round.

I would mention Quick Ben as a character going nowhere - we learned a very little more about him in TBH (he has a sister), but his main role was to dither and fret while other, less interesting characters (I'm thinking Bottle, here, but it might be someone else) get more of the limelight. Quick Ben has a world of knowledge in his head, and lifetimes of stories to tell, but we never get to hear them.

Ahh, but the fact that he's so enigmatic is what makes him so likeable! It's also because finding anything out about Quick Ben is so difficult that makes those rare moments when you do so special!

At least Erikson knew that Kalam had run his course, but I wish he had the balls to let him actually die. Same with Hedge, and even with Whiskeyjack - what's the need for a younger sister? Maybe she will be more interesting in later books, but so far serves only to keep her brother's memory alive in the reader's mind.

This is one of my biggest criticisms of Erikson - whilst I find the idea of the Bridgeburners song beautiful, and the idea of Coltaine being reborn through the devotion of those he left behind (my memory of this is very sketchy so that might not be quite right), it sort of feels like he's pulled his punches a little bit... hm, dunno.

 

[Karsa Orlong]

It's a fragmented book, the second half feels disconnected from the first and it doesn't have much cohesion.

Yeah, I could go either way on this to be honest. Whilst what you say is definitely right *in theory*, my reading experience was absolutely terrific throughout and it didn't bother me at all, so there's a certain gulf between what in retrospect I might expect to have felt and what I actually felt.

It feels more episodic than the previous books and it's the first one which really doesn't work as a stand-alone novel (HoC came close at times, but you can just about manage it without reference to the others).

I don't recommend for anybody to read them as stand alone novels or out of order, so that doesn't interest me, but you may be right.

I won't quote your Bakker paragraph 'cause it might make people read it who don't want to, but I pretty much agree, it's another one of those cases where I can see what he was trying to do but I'm not sure he quite pulled it off.

Despite some disappointment with AFFC, I still rate Martin above both. His characters are stronger than Bakker's. Bakker commits the cardinal sin, although he tries to avoid it harder, that Erikson does by giving many of his characters a similar voice and a tendency to philosophise at any given opportunity. Martin's much surerer grasp on the truth of his characters means that they feel far more like individuals than either Bakker or Erikson (although both are still much better at this than most epic fantasy writers). I also feel that occasionally Bakker and much more often Erikson are in danger of wrecking their stories through some impressive display of magical power that is actually rather silly compared to the harsh grittiness elsewhere of their created worlds, and the same presence of high magic means it's very easy to create magical DXM solutions to major plot problems. Given the low-magic nature of Martin's world, that is more easily avoided.

Now, see, I happen to find Martin's characters far less appealing than Erikson's or Bakker's. I don't like the way each character was literally and sometimes repeatedly introduced in descriptions as possessing two or three clear, stereotypical character traits and then the often trite way the characters turned those stereotypes on their heads, or got their come-uppances. At the points where it's not generic, it's often so blatantly centred around or against the generic that it's just as clichéd. I've not read past A Game of Thrones and I'm sure it'll get better, but still, I couldn't connect to any POV characters in that book save Tyrion (whose sense of humour and mere tone of voice make him fantastic) and to an extent Jon, who at least had a bit of mystery to his personality. This flaw is for me infinitely more severe than any criticisms I've made of Bakker so far in this thread - Martin does have other strengths though, and I thought it was a decent read.

When I was recently re-reading the series, it did occur to be that Paul Kearney's excellent Monarchies of God series (highly recommended by Erikson) is very much a lighter version of Bakker with better battles but less philosophy, although an equal need to address the truth or reality of what happens in warfare (the village scene in the fourth volume, The Second Empire, remains a harrowing depiction of the effect of pragmatic military decisions on a civilian population).

I look forward to reading Kearney, I have the first book in his Sea Beggars series on my shelf.

 

[Valko]

Martin good, Erikson better. It's like Author Farm

I'm not sure how you can compare them, like for like? They write in different styles of fantasy. I enjoy them both equally.

 

[Rahl Windsong]

Well you can go on for ever about which author is best or better but in the end I think I am glad they all exist or I would have nothing to read.

 

[Jason_Taverner]

doesn't anyone know the release date for the next one

 

[Werthead]

Reaper's Gale is out on 2 April 2007. Esslemont's first book, Night of Knives, gets its first major publishing run in June.

 

[Karsa Orlong]

Esslemont's first proper novel is also coming out next year, I think, though I'm not sure there's a more specific release time than that.

 

[Rane Longfox]

When I last checked, nothing had been confirmed for Esselmont's "Return of the Crimson Guard", no... it's been written though, allegedly, so certainly sometime next year