Just finished The Black Company. I've read the first two Malazan books. I felt that Erikson was absolutely inspired by Cook.
Most people have commented so far on the similarities between the Black Company and the Bridgeburners. And yet, the similarities of divine, supernatural, and political wars and infighting are striking. The battles of mortals merely reflect supernatural maneuverings.
Also, Erickson seems to have used much of Cook's naming patterns. Usually fantasy books are filled with made up names like Elrond, Aragorn, Galadriel, Daenerys, Ged, Flewddur Flam, and Eilonwy. Cook gives us One Eye, Croaker, Silent, Soulcatcher, Shapeshifter, and The Limper. Erikson follows suit with Quick Ben, Dancer, Whiskeyjack, Fiddler, and Sorry.
Like Cook, Erikson just takes off telling his story with almost no background. Neither stops to give copious details on the creatures of their world. When you were ten years old you may have read the following... "The mother of our particular hobbit—what is a hobbit? I suppose hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us. They are (or were) a little people..." I remember being grateful that the author stopped to tell me exactly what kind of creature of whom he wrote. Now, that we're all older, we don't need to be spoon fed. I'm now grateful when an author expects me to use my memory and imagination to accurately follow the story. Cook did not even include a map!
I read Joe Abercrombie's Best Served Cold sometime in the last two years. And I now see that Abercrombie and Erikson are both big fans of Glen Cook.
But after reading these books, who can I call a protagonist? The only character from The Black Company, Gardens of the Moon, and Best Served Cold who comes across as even partially worthy of both admiration and interest is Rallick Nom. There are a lot of interesting characters, but they're all nasty pieces of work.
To the title, Steven Erikson is just a Glen Cook hack?? I believe that a hack only imitates at best. A hack does not actually build upon the original. A hack merely replicates a facsimile in order to make money or fame.
In my estimation, Erikson has taken Cook's world and taken it to the next level. To my knowledge, the world of Malazan is unrivaled in detail. Each nation has it's own culture, language, and religion. Each race has it's own language and history. Each culture has it's own rivalries and predjudices. Each government has it's own laws and procedures. Impressively, Erikson shows how magic works in his world. And over the top of all this is a panoply of wizards, heroes, demigods, and gods of many races competing in the celestial sphere.
To be sure, Tolkien had languages, calendars, and histories, but his main focus was to create a fanciful English mythology. Mythologies are not supposed to be systematized, but the Malazan world has been systematically detailed. Fantasy lit has changed. Interesting details are great, but someone needs to tell David Weber that I don't want to know the chemical analysis of Safeholdian gunpower nor read chapters about how molybdenum affects the ductility of steel.
In the past, I've blasted Jordan, Brooks, and McKiernan for taking Tolkien's sacred cow and making Big Macs, but that is not the case with Erikson. He has not degraded Cook's work... I think he's elevated it.
