21 replies to this topic

[Bighammer]

I was just wondering if any of you had read these yet and what your opinion of them is. His style is completely different from Howard, of course, but I believe that in 5-10 years this man will be spoken of as one of the true master storytellers of this genre. I love the way he reveals his world to you a little at a time without making it seem like a tease and the sheer age of the world. Probably more than any other author writing right now, he seems to understand that characters aren't for commercialization, they're part of the story and sometimes that story has unhappy effects on them. Anyone have any thoughts on his work?

[Philzilla]

I was just wondering if any of you had read these yet and what your opinion of them is. His style is completely different from Howard, of course, but I believe that in 5-10 years this man will be spoken of as one of the true master storytellers of this genre. I love the way he reveals his world to you a little at a time without making it seem like a tease and the sheer age of the world. Probably more than any other author writing right now, he seems to understand that characters aren't for commercialization, they're part of the story and sometimes that story has unhappy effects on them. Anyone have any thoughts on his work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've only read the first one (so far), Gardens of the Moon, but it's up there with George R.R. Martin's (...Ice and Fire) and Greg Keyes'(...Thorn and Bone) series for me.

Erikson is often a bit confusing so I wouldn't classify it as light reading, but to "active" readers I would say it's worth a go.

However if you like lots history of this world type exposition it might be frustrating at first.

[Crom]

I reviewed the book over at swordandsorcery.org if you are interested. I compare him with Glen Cook, one of the few mainstream fantasy authors I'll read today. Erikson is a Canadian who had his Malazan books published in England before he was discovered over here. His work is definitely worth reading.

[Primeval]

I reviewed the book over at swordandsorcery.org if you are interested. I compare him with Glen Cook, one of the few mainstream fantasy authors I'll read today. Erikson is a Canadian who had his Malazan books published in England before he was discovered over here. His work is definitely worth reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I ran across his stuff when I was at a bookstore in Sweden last year, and was intrigued but wanted to look into it more before I started in on his series. I recall very favorable reviews, but I also seem to recall reading somewhere that his world includes some gunpowder technology. I know, it is anal of me, but for me that just ruins things, even one mention of guns or cannons and I am off. Am I remembering correctly? If not then I need to pick up his stuff, because I like the sounds of the reviews I have read.

[Croms Bones]

I read the first one, and didn't care for it AT ALL; I finished it more out of spite than anything. Many characters are nearly divine in strength, characters die left and right only to be brought back to life in the next chapter (giving no emotional tie to characters, and completely discounting any fear of death from the reader), and you frequently find yourself having to reread chapters to figure out what the heck is going on in the story. Back when I was an active poster in the book's forums, it was nothing but thread after thread of readers asking for help from people that finished the book. The book, in my opinion, and by Erikson's own acknowledgement, just doesn't explain things as well as it should, which is why by the end of chapter 3, he leaves a lot of people with their head spinning.. but then again, I think it was his first book.

My understanding is that the books get better as they go along; as Erikson's writing skill increased... and that if you can trudge through the sludge to book 3, you'll be glad you did so. I have no doubt that it's true, but with the distaste book 1 left in my mouth, I can't bring myself to buy book 2.. Erikson has a talent for writing though, I just think his version of fantasy doesn't sit well with me; the constant intervention of gods, the power of his characters, and people literally getting blown in half still carrying on conversations as if nothing was wrong with them, doesn't sit well in my version of good fantasy.

His next series though, I'll undoubtedly pick up.

Edited by Croms Bones, 25 January 2006 - 09:48 PM.

[Hyborian Frog]

I was just wondering if any of you had read these yet and what your opinion of them is. His style is completely different from Howard, of course, but I believe that in 5-10 years this man will be spoken of as one of the true master storytellers of this genre. I love the way he reveals his world to you a little at a time without making it seem like a tease and the sheer age of the world. Probably more than any other author writing right now, he seems to understand that characters aren't for commercialization, they're part of the story and sometimes that story has unhappy effects on them. Anyone have any thoughts on his work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Definitely the best "new" fantasy series. It's dark, detailed, and soaked in esoteric details. Each book in this ten volume epic has its own story-arc and ending. You can read them in any order you choose or even skip books all together. Gardens of the Moon blew me out of the water.

Erickson's Malazan co-creater Ian Cameron Esslemont also is a force to be reckoned with. He is writing another five novels in this world. The first, Night of Knives, is a face paced adventure that spans a perios of 24 hours. Like Erickson, his Malazan tales will be self-contained and you can pick and choose which books to read.

Malazan Book of the Fallen is an epic masterpiece!

[Hyborian Frog]

I was just wondering if any of you had read these yet and what your opinion of them is. His style is completely different from Howard, of course, but I believe that in 5-10 years this man will be spoken of as one of the true master storytellers of this genre. I love the way he reveals his world to you a little at a time without making it seem like a tease and the sheer age of the world. Probably more than any other author writing right now, he seems to understand that characters aren't for commercialization, they're part of the story and sometimes that story has unhappy effects on them. Anyone have any thoughts on his work?

Definitely the best "new" fantasy series. It's dark, detailed, and soaked in esoteric details. Each book in this ten volume epic has its own story-arc and ending. You can read them in any order you choose or even skip books all together. Gardens of the Moon blew me out of the water.

Erickson's Malazan co-creater Ian Cameron Esslemont also is a force to be reckoned with. He is writing another five novels in this world. The first, Night of Knives, is a face paced adventure that spans a perios of 24 hours. Like Erickson, his Malazan tales will be self-contained and you can pick and choose which books to read.

Malazan Book of the Fallen is an epic masterpiece!

If only this were true! rofl

Now that the main series is done...it turned out that other than Maybe 1-3, and book 5 you really could not read these as self-contained stories. ICE's later novels got very long as well but they have so far been better as self-contained stories. None of his later books are fastpaced 24 hour time-frame stories like Knight of Knives. Good stuff, but I gotta say that I now vastley prefer Glen Cook (pointed out years ago by this very forum). It's clear that lots of Malazan was influenced by both Cook's Dread Empire and Black Company novels. What I like about Cook is that his stories are not bloated like Malazan and a majority of modern fantasy.

[Almuric]

I've tried three times to get into this series, and failed each time. I'm usually fine with Big Fat Fantasies, but this one leaves me cold.

[deuce]

I've tried three times to get into this series, and failed each time. I'm usually fine with Big Fat Fantasies, but this one leaves me cold.

Same here. Bloated, derivative and founded upon poor world-building (hard to believe the guy is an archaeologist). I would recommend Cook or Kearney instead.

[Rockamobile]

I've tried three times to get into this series, and failed each time. I'm usually fine with Big Fat Fantasies, but this one leaves me cold.

Same here. Bloated, derivative and founded upon poor world-building (hard to believe the guy is an archaeologist). I would recommend Cook or Kearney instead.

Gritty and realistic . Erikson built a quite remarkable would and vast and rich back ground and History. The charters are are wonderfully complex and enigmatic. Captain Paran and t Bridge burners , Apsalar Crupe. Adjuct Tavor , Empress Lasen. The Hounds . The Talan Imas ,This is by far one of the best fantasy series out there, easily on par with George Martin, Glen Cook and Michael Moorcock .

[Rockamobile]

I've tried three times to get into this series, and failed each time. I'm usually fine with Big Fat Fantasies, but this one leaves me cold.

Its a series you love or hate There is no in between on this one. Ive recommended this series to alot of people some love it some hate.

[Hyborian Frog]

Orb, Sceptre, Throne is out in the US now...

The first two chapters for Forge of Darkness are up. This is a prequel series that is 3 books long. And I find the first two chapters just killer! It also helps that I like the subject material of this trilogy!



Introduction

http://www.tor.com/b...d-and-new-alike

Chapter 1

http://www.tor.com/s...ter-one-excerpt

Chapter 2

http://www.tor.com/s...ter-two-excerpt

Edited by Hyborian Frog, 08 August 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[LagomorphRex]

I've been working on this series since January.. I've still got a long way to go. Currently about halfway through Reaper's Gale.. which is book 7, but I've also been reading the other books that tie into the series from Ian Cameron Esslemont.. so I'm really about 9 books into a 14 book series.. with a seemingly endless stream of new ones coming out adding to it.

I really cannot agree that there is poor world building... he simply doesn't spoon feed it to you. I wouldn't say it was derivitive so much as an homage to Amber & The Black Company.. with a lot of Forgotten Realms thrown in for good measure.. all this is expected when you take into account that these books are based on years of game campaigns the two authors ran..

Sorry to say that this is really really one of those series which you either love or hate..

I likely won't be reading the Kharkanus books until all 3 of them are out.. I've given up on buying new books from TOR becuase they are so inconsistant with the release formats.. Been waiting years for the 3rd book of Cook's Instrumentalities series to be released in Trade Paperback format to match the first two.. and it's still nowhere to be seen. Will just get them all in mass market and be done with it..

[deuce]

Gritty and realistic . Erikson built a quite remarkable would and vast and rich back ground and History. The charters are are wonderfully complex and enigmatic. Captain Paran and t Bridge burners , Apsalar Crupe. Adjuct Tavor , Empress Lasen. The Hounds . The Talan Imas ,This is by far one of the best fantasy series out there,

He ripped off Elric from Moorcock and Mocker from Cook (himself a ripoff from Mundy and Anderson). Erickson's world, with all the teleportation, etc, would look NOTHING like it does (just like GRRM's world).

It's all been done better, IMO.

My last post on this (probably).


To each his own and all that.

PLENTY of people think that Terry Brooks or Eddings or Feist kick a$$.

easily on par with George Martin, Glen Cook

GRRM's world-building is crap. Good first novel, despite that. Cook's "Dread Empire" and "Swordbearer" worlds are better.

and Michael Moorcock .

Moorcock is the eternal champion of poor world-building. Elric's world is the only one worth a damn. I love the Corum novels, but they'd never work as a "world".

Dunsany built a better "world" 100yrs ago. REH started building a better "universe" about 90yrs ago.

Bakker's "King of Nothing" (he's an Erikson fan, BTW) has "Malazan" beat standing still, IMO. Better in every category. PERIOD.

[LagomorphRex]

What Bakker writes about is bad enough, his justifications for writing about it are just grotesque though. It's like a Fantasy novel written by Pier Paolo Pasolini.

[Hyborian Frog]

deuce, do you really need to bash Erickson nonstop?  Honestly by your posts I don't think you have read much if any of his books.  If you did, did you not enjoy Deadhouse Gates or Memories of Ice?

I cannot believe in your effort to portray intellectual elitism...you actually used Swordbearer(widely considered Cook's worst novel), Eddings(considered one of the worst fantasy authors ever.  Literally his first two series are the exact same story), Terry Brooks(Sword is a complete Tolkien rip), etc. to show why Erickson sucks.  It is honestly quite hilarious!

Erickson has freely admited to all his influences many many times.  But trust me, Malazan is not a ripoff series in the least.  It's a great mixture of Tolkien(mythic), Homer(tragedy), Moorcock(anti-heroes, metaphysical), Howard(barbarism, darkness etc., Karasa), and obviously Glen Cook(nick names, Bridgeburners, soldier POVs).  It is really EPIC!  Actually there is nothing this EPIC out there.  It deals with more continents, armies, races, wars than probably anything out there.

But hey this is common.  Cook fans sometimes love Erickson.  Almost all Erickson fans end up loving Cook.  That is probably because Glen's books are much faster/easier reads and the POVs and naming style of soliders is similar because that is where Steven/Esselmont got the idea for that from.

*puts a carrot on a string from the end of a stick and dangles it in front of duece...

Just face it, Malazan is too deep, too complex, and too literary for you.  You just don't "get it"!



For the rest of you, a good starting point is this new trilogy.  It is set before all the other books and is a self-contained story-arc.

Edited by Hyborian Frog, 10 August 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[LagomorphRex]

Well he's certainly entitled to his own opinion.. but then I *LIKE* Terry Brooks, Feist and Eddings.. But I also *Like* Glen Cook, Steven Erikson and Roger Zelazney.

[Hyborian Frog]

A really nice resource for this series is hosted over at TOR.  It's called Malazan Reread of the Fallen!  It even covers the Ian's Malaz series as well!

http://www.tor.com/f...d-of-the-fallen

[deuce]

What Bakker writes about is bad enough, his justifications for writing about it are just grotesque though. It's like a Fantasy novel written by Pier Paolo Pasolini.

By all means, take your observations to this thread:

http://www.conan.com...owtopic=1804=

...and clarify your points.

I'm perfectly willing to do so on this thread regarding Erikson.

[LagomorphRex]

What Bakker writes about is bad enough, his justifications for writing about it are just grotesque though. It's like a Fantasy novel written by Pier Paolo Pasolini.

By all means, take your observations to this thread:

http://www.conan.com...owtopic=1804=

...and clarify your points.

I'm perfectly willing to do so on this thread regarding Erikson.

I'm not interested in the slightest in discussing Bakker. I think you've also laid out what you dislike about Erikson, far be it for me to tell you not to expound on those statements.. but since I happen not to agree with them.. I don't think it would be a good use of your time.. if I'm being honest.