Gardens of the Moon frustration

[Overread]

150 pages - you were only scratching the surface there

 

[biodroid]

I didn't find it confusing, well not as much as people have mentioned here if you are expecting a straight forward plot then it might confuse you. Deadhouse Gates reads a lot better but I gave up interest in the series.

 

[Bugg]

Meh, scrub that - just been dumped with a load of different Darujhistan POV's.

Sounds like you've reached the point where some people either sink or swim - or maybe wade a bit

All this has reminded me about Crone, Crokus, Kruppe, Coll, Murillio etc. And a certain Mr Rake, of course. It's making me want to start a third re-read, and I'd promised myself not to do that until next year

 

[HareBrain]

Meh, scrub that - just been dumped with a load of different Darujhistan POV's.

The trouble (for me), is, this just keeps happening. Throughout the first three books (as far as I got), you're introduced to groups of new characters, many of them POVs, until you have an enormous cast list the author gives you no help with managing.

This isn't a problem if you love the books enough to really put the effort in and enough to re-read them. I'm sure effort pays rewards in Erikson's case, and I really wanted to like them that much myself, but I just didn't. There's real brilliance in places, but overall, they are a mess, and far too long. Erikson has IMO no head for structure -- for example, Memories of Ice has a beginning, middle and end, but then another middle and another end. (Of course none of that would matter so much if I really engaged with more than a handful of the characters, though some of them, like Crone, Kruppe and Rake, are fantastic.)

Anyway, I would always recommend that people at least try them. GOTM was my favourite of the three that I read.

 

[Brian G Turner]

My plan was to just read Gardens of the Moon as research - after all, plenty enough people talking about it here on chrons.

I'm finding the names and cultures lacking in structure and depth and detail, which is grating a little. And at this stage, I doubt I would want to read all about completely different characters in a world that hasn't really sold itself to me yet. It's fun and enjoyable enough so far, though.

 

[Overread]

I think the thing is Erikson tries to snare you with the story and characters; revelations about the world and worldbuilding itself start to come later in the story. It creates an environment where the reader is somewhat swept along with the action - not always 100% sure, but held with just enough of that interest to press on to get some answers (even if you don't get them all).

It can be somewhat of a grating move if you're the kind of person that likes to deal with specific facts; and the series also throws many out of the saddle in Deadhouse Gates by jumping to a whole new continent with only a few stray characters from the first book.

 

[HareBrain]

I think the thing is Erikson tries to snare you with the story and characters

I think what snared me at first was the sense of stumbling into an imagination that was completely different, and which made no concessions; but for me, that can only carry on for so long before I need some grounding. I enjoy being thrown into a deep end, especially a deep end so wildly imaginative, but I expect to be able to learn to swim eventually, rather than being hampered by currents and tides and having to contend with fishing nets and floating wreckage.

 

[Bugg]

It can be somewhat of a grating move if you're the kind of person that likes to deal with specific facts; and the series also throws many out of the saddle in Deadhouse Gates by jumping to a whole new continent with only a few stray characters from the first book.

Yeah, IIRC, GotM was written a considerable amount of time before the rest of the series, so there are some inconsistencies in it. Also, I believe Memories of Ice was intended to be the second book in the series, and Erikson had most of the first draft done when he lost it to a hard drive failure (nothing quite like keeping a back-up, I say), so he decided to move on with Deadhouse Gates instead. I imagine, had MoI turned out to be the second book, it would have resulted in less confusion/disjointedness for some readers.

Erikson has IMO no head for structure -- for example, Memories of Ice has a beginning, middle and end, but then another middle and another end.

You're right about MoI - the second 'middle' is something I found problematic, too - but I don't think that misstep means he has no head for structure. IMO, his handle of pacing - apart from that hiccup - from Deadhouse Gates through to The Bonehunters, and his ability to juggle multiple plot threads and then have them all converge in the final third of each of those novels, is one of the aspects of his writing that has raised him above most of the other authors I like. I remember reading the last two or three hundred pages of The Bonehunters in one sitting, because it was so exciting, so remarkable in the way he pulled so many threads together from the previous novels and then unleashed carnage upon them, that I just couldn't put it down.

Of course, I can completely understand anyone who was not enamoured with the earlier books not being bothered about events so much further down the line and, admittedly, even I found it went a bit awry in Reaper's Gale and Dust of Dreams (and to a degree in Toll the Hounds, although I think that is a hugely underrated novel), but I can't think of many other multi-book series that have sustained that level for as many of their entries.

 

[Overread]

I think Deadhouse Gates is where it needs to be. I think had he put Memories of Ice right after, whilst it would have flowed better there; it would have jarred readers to be so comfortable with one cast; only to suddenly be thrown by the 3rd book (like it or not fantasy readers* are addicted to trilogies) with a totally new story near enough. In the end it would just have prolonged the point of confusion and maybe even made it a little worse

Whilst it is a daunting thing to throw two whole casts at readers early on, the stories do link together and presenting them one after the other helps to reinforce those ties (eg the whole story of Sorry and co travelling over the dessert wouldn't have worked half as well if you'd had the whole of Memories of Ice to read before you got that part; that in addition to the content relating to the revelations about the Malazan plan presented to the reader at the end of Deadhouse)

In the end Malazan is Epic Fantasy and it does not try to be anything else but that. So many who are recommended or attracted to the series are going to be those prepared to expect an epic tale with all the massive plot twists, viewpoints, character lists, worldbuilding etc.... that goes hand in hand with a much larger story.


* ok ok ok publishers!

 

[Bugg]

Yes, agreed (I should maybe have emphasised the 'some readers' part of my previous post). The alternating between the main plot lines/continents works really well for me, too. I appreciate the method in Erikson's madness.

 

[Coragem]

My plan was to just read Gardens of the Moon as research - after all, plenty enough people talking about it here on chrons.

As a writer I pick books that I can learn from, as well as enjoy.

In terms of writing technique, etc., do people feel that I can learn from the Mazalan series?

In terms of what I enjoy, I like "realistic" worlds without too much magic and superstition, together with very strong characters and ideally some heroism.

Coragem.

 

[Overread]

"Without too much magic" is not a description I expected to hear with reference to Malazan - the worldset is oozing magic from every corner. Gods and monsters and spells and dragons heck Moon's Spawn is floating castle with a roost of magic absorbing giant crows for a shield.

Now if you want realistic and low magic I'd go for A Song of Ice and Fire

 

[Bugg]

Or one of Guy Gavriel Kay's books

 

[Coragem]

Now if you want realistic and low magic I'd go for A Song of Ice and Fire

Or one of Guy Gavriel Kay's books

It just so happens that GRRM and GGK are my two favourite authors. I'm just keen to find alternatives since I can only re-read their stuff so many times!

Coragem.

 

[Bugg]

It just so happens that GRRM and GGK are my two favourite authors. I'm just keen to find alternatives since I can only re-read their stuff so many times!

Coragem.

Ah, yes, that could be a problem!

How about Joe Abercrombie?

 

[Brian G Turner]

In terms of writing technique, etc., do people feel that I can learn from the Mazalan series?

I think it's more a context issue - I'm writing fantasy and think I need to be aware firstly, of popular works in the genre, and secondly, of published authors my work will fit next to.

As I have minimal "magic" and use ancient Rome and Byzantium as major inspirations alongside mediaeval Europe, I've just ordered Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic series to see if there's anything I can learn from that.

 

[Ökuþórr]

As a writer I pick books that I can learn from, as well as enjoy.

In terms of writing technique, etc., do people feel that I can learn from the Mazalan series?

In terms of what I enjoy, I like "realistic" worlds without too much magic and superstition, together with very strong characters and ideally some heroism.

Coragem.

Brian Ruckley's Godless World trilogy I believe is a good one without too much magic. I enjoyed it. Not the cheeriest books in the world.

 

[Clansman]

As a writer I pick books that I can learn from, as well as enjoy.

In terms of writing technique, etc., do people feel that I can learn from the Mazalan series?

In terms of what I enjoy, I like "realistic" worlds without too much magic and superstition, together with very strong characters and ideally some heroism.

Coragem.

Malazan is not just Epic fantasy, but rather is Epic High Fantasy. It, as Overread said, oozes magic and supernatural stuff on every page. There is so much of it that you simply accept it as part of that world. But it is very different high fantasy. I can't think of anything like it. I am in the midst of Esselmont's Return of the Crimson Guard, having read up to The Bonehunters in Erikson's books. The jury is still out on whether or not I like it RotCG. I really liked Esselmont's Night of Knives which was a nice background to GotM. I almost wish that I had read it first.

As for low fantasy, try just about anything by Paul Kearney, but especially his Sea Beggars and his Macht books. I loved his Monarchies of God series, but there was more magic in that than in his other stuff.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think the thing is Erikson tries to snare you with the story and characters; revelations about the world and worldbuilding itself start to come later in the story.

It's not so much the world building - not too worried about that - but the names seem random, which doesn't help convey a sense of culture.

However, what I really like about Gardens of the Moon, is that when a clue is presented, the POV characters start to figure it out immediately. As opposed to the general fiction norm, where otherwise intelligent characters can't figure out the simplest details for half a book, leaving the reader frustrated for figuring it all out long before the protagonist!

 

[Lenny]

I will say that there are some names that you can instantly recognise as coming from specific parts of the Empire, and the world, but I agree that a lot of them seem random.

However, as a majority of characters are in one of the Malazan Empire's many armies, where real names are replaced by names that describe the persons character and races, creeds and cultures are generally ignored, it does make some sense. People like Fiddler, Whiskeyjack, Hedge, Kalam, etc, will be from every part of the Empire, but they're almost instantly recognisable as Malazan soldiers.