Read first one, does it realy get better?

[Jason_Taverner]

I loved the 1st book I didn't see the problem ppl had with it but they just get better and better I read deadhouse gates and didn't think anything would top it but some he does with each one he writes

 

[Frozeninja]

I loved the 1st book I didn't see the problem ppl had with it but they just get better and better I read deadhouse gates and didn't think anything would top it but some he does with each one he writes

Same here, while the first one was complicated I was never tempted to put it down. They are all excellent, though Deadhouse Gates may be my favourite for the chain of dogs (and other bits). The only one that caused me a bit of dismay was Midnight Tides when I realised just how few of the characters I already knew, but it still turned out to be a great book.

 

[sanityassassin]

I had a problem with GotM too. I read to the end of the first chapter and just felt I couldn't continue with it as it was over complex and and i had no idea who was who even with the list of characters at the start and so dumped to the side but have decided to give it another go and I still am not too sure about it for parts of it I am really enjoying but there are still other parts which want me to just give up on it, it is very complex sometimes overly so but I think if i persevere I could very well come to really like the story and wish to continue the series. I must say this is the first book that I have both loved and hated at the same time some characters I am intrested in and some that just don't appeal at all

 

[Jason_Taverner]

sanityassassin please keep at its worth it. Once you read the first book and get how warrens work and how the gods schemes are played out it becomes easy to read and its a very enjoyable series. Once you've read the first two books there will be no looking back

 

[sanityassassin]

I have finished the first book and I couldn't help but think it seemed like a massive prologue for the series it didn't seem to go anywhere except telling you how things worked like gods and warrens.

 

[GOLLUM]

I have finished the first book and I couldn't help but think it seemed like a massive prologue for the series it didn't seem to go anywhere except telling you how things worked like gods and warrens.

Don't forget this in many ways is a setup book for the remainder of the series and as such suffers a little for development of plot. The remaining books do explore Erikson's magical system but also continues with plot and charater development. Remember this series is a 10 volume affair, EPIC with a capital E and therefore Book 1 introduces a lot of concepts that are then expanded upon in latter books but characters and the variuos races are also expanded upon.

Does it get better after Book 1? Absolutely and in an exponential fashion.

 

[Rane Longfox]

Don't forget this in many ways is a setup book for the remainder of the series and as such suffers a little for development of plot.

Well, you'e allowed your opinion, but personally I thought the plot was excellent. Maybe some of the characters suffered from the abrubt ending, but not the plot. That said, I loved the way it started...

The remaining books do explore Erikson's magical system but also continues with plot and charater development. Remember this series is a 10 volume affair, EPIC with a capital E and therefore Book 1 introduces a lot of concepts that are then expanded upon in latter books but characters and the variuos races are also expanded upon.

Yup, what he said - even after book 6 the magic system completely. Unambiguous it is not.

 

[Thadlerian]

I read Gardens of the Moon this summer, and I think it is one of the coolest, most entertaining Fantasy books I've read. There was really lots of stuff going on, lots! A superb book for rereading, to uncover all those little secrets you didn't understand the first time.

But then I read Deadhouse Gates a little later.

DG really made me think. I'm unable to like the book itself. The paperback clocked in at nine hundred freaking pages; not even Robert Jordan grew that fat that early in the series. Now, a big, fat book isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly needs to have something to communicate, something important about people and their thoughts, and their relations to others.
But DG doesn't give me any of this. It feels very much like the second Thomas Covenant book; a big tale about running and killing, which seems to happen a lot in this book. Especially the latter. It seems to define everything. The most prominent way of telling the characters apart is to find their preferred way of killing other people, which I think all the characters do at some time or another. At one point, Erikson even spent a whole sentence to tell how far brain fragments would have spread, if, remark this, if that guy had hit that other guy, which he didn't. What's the point? What sort of obsession is this? As if the book isn't too full of that sort of stuff already!

And then it strikes me, I've read all this stuff over and over in other Fantasy books, at various levels of grittiness. How could DG fall so far from GOTM? Where's all the fun stuff from GOTM? Tattersail and her observations; Paran, and his happy-go-lucky impulses; Kruppe, with his funny talk; Darujhistan, with its mysterious rooftops and blue lights; Quick Ben, with his desperate and wild plans; Hairlock, whatever he was trying to do; Anomander Rake, probably the coolest Fantasy character ever seen; all this stuff, where did it go? All I'm left with is Felisin, a teen girl character even more annoying than Faile!

Reading DG, I also saw what I really hadn't been willing to notice in GOTM; the characterizations are pretty bad. Apart from the name and the job, how can you tell Rallick Nom apart from Murillio? Or Trotts from Mallet? There seems to be no individuality to them, and most importantly: There's no character intrigue (except perhaps between Icarium and Mappo in DG). The characters don't affect each other, but that hardly seems to matter, because the characters are hardly affected by anything at all.
Every now and then, in DG, Erikson makes an effort to tell us how anguished all this killing makes the characters, how their souls are close to tearing, and so on. But it hardly matters, because the characters aren't really affected by all the horrible things they see (and do), it doesn't influence their choices; as soon as the paragraph is over, they move on to the next quest waypoint completely unaffected; mindless vehicles to tour the reader through the plot.
In the end, I find that I hardly care about the DG characters at all, and here is something interesting: I did care about the GOTM characters. It seems like bad characterization becomes irrelevant when the characters know how to entertain the reader with great adventures, actions and statements. Just look at The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down.

Now, Erikson readers, please tell me: What are the next books like? Are they a continuation of the style of DG, or a return to the charm of GOTM? From what I've said in this post, do you find it likely that I will enjoy them? GOTM is a great book, with real promise, but it depends on the writer being able to continue in that vein.

 

[Rane Longfox]

It's hard to say. Most fans go all gooey when you mention Deadhouse Gates, but I thought it was one of the least enjoyable of the series. Memories of Ice, the third book, is an outstanding book, and certainly surpasses GotM. I always say that you should read the first three to get a proper idea of Erikson's series, but it depends if you've got the patience, I guess. What you will have to get used to, if you read further into the series, however, is that each book doesn't follow straight on from the previous one - as you, said, DhG loses most of the guys from GotM, MoI goes back to the GotM characters, but elsewhere, HoC is back with DhG characters and some GotM ones, Midnight Tides introduces a whole new set completely, and Bonehunters mixes them all together.

The Malazan Book of the Fallen is anything but one coherant storyline.