Malazan series by Steve Erikson... anyone read it?
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
Joshua Randall
Legend
The first book was so god-awful that I vowed never to read anything by him again.
But you'll get a horde of fanboys stopping by to sing the praises of the series, and to call me intellectually stunted for not being able to appreciate the complex plot.
I'll dig up some reviews and edit them into this post.
Edits follow.
OK, here's a generally favorable review --> http://www.ultraverse.us/2004_09/v1i6l_rerikson.shtml . It does mention how much of a slog the book is.
Ah, here's the one I was thinking of --> http://www.abbygoldsmith.com/reviews/book/GardensMoon.html . This lady tells it like it is: "In spite of having all the proper elements for a compelling fantasy novel, Gardens of the Moon is more of a vehicle for rambling prose than a story." That pretty much sums it up.
This review --> http://www.sfreviews.net/gardens_of_the_moon.html is a re-review; apparently in the original review, the reviewer thought the book was "a meticulously crafted sedative that will put out your lights faster than a double lungful of nitrous oxide." He was right. But in the re-review he has to play the intellectual snobbery card, saying that [sneering] casual readers [/sneering] won't appreciate the complexity of Erickson's work. Whatever, dude.
This review --> http://damiengwalter.wordpress.com/2006/10/14/gardens-of-the-moon/ accurately pegs the totally uninteresting characters in the book. Why should you care about anyone in the story, other than as a mover for the plot? You shouldn't. (The one character I did care about,
, ends up committing suicide for no apparent reason.) (Actually, I'm sure there is some obscure reason that my limited mind cannot fully grasp.)
But you'll get a horde of fanboys stopping by to sing the praises of the series, and to call me intellectually stunted for not being able to appreciate the complex plot.
I'll dig up some reviews and edit them into this post.
Edits follow.
OK, here's a generally favorable review --> http://www.ultraverse.us/2004_09/v1i6l_rerikson.shtml . It does mention how much of a slog the book is.
Ah, here's the one I was thinking of --> http://www.abbygoldsmith.com/reviews/book/GardensMoon.html . This lady tells it like it is: "In spite of having all the proper elements for a compelling fantasy novel, Gardens of the Moon is more of a vehicle for rambling prose than a story." That pretty much sums it up.
This review --> http://www.sfreviews.net/gardens_of_the_moon.html is a re-review; apparently in the original review, the reviewer thought the book was "a meticulously crafted sedative that will put out your lights faster than a double lungful of nitrous oxide." He was right. But in the re-review he has to play the intellectual snobbery card, saying that [sneering] casual readers [/sneering] won't appreciate the complexity of Erickson's work. Whatever, dude.
This review --> http://damiengwalter.wordpress.com/2006/10/14/gardens-of-the-moon/ accurately pegs the totally uninteresting characters in the book. Why should you care about anyone in the story, other than as a mover for the plot? You shouldn't. (The one character I did care about,
Tattersail
Last edited:
You might just get some regular people who simply liked the books...Joshua Randall said:
I'm on Book 6, The Bonehunters, which is proving to be something of a slog after a terrific first third. The books vary in quality (I'm in the minority that actual thinks Gardens of the Moon is one of the better in the series), and there's simply too much going on.
That said, I think it's some of the most imaginative epic fantasy out there.
IcedEarth81
First Post
It's a great series. The first book is tough, I won't lie about that. Erikson throws you right into the action and for half the book you really don't know what is going on. But, it gets better towards the end. The second book, Deadhouse Gates, is fantastic. Memories of Ice is even better. That is the only book thus far to feature Gruntle, but he owns in that one. When he gets cranked up you definately want to be out of his way. The 5th book, Midnight Tides, is also one of those you don't want to put down.
The scale of the Malazan series is staggering. It covers events on multiple continents with a patheon of gods and goddesses acting in the events of mortals and remnants of ancient races. The battles sequences are very well written. Erikson creates some memorable characters and definately hits the old heartstrings several times.
But, in the technical sense his writing isn't on par with, say, Martin. At times the books take some effort to absorb, but the effort is worth it to me. Most people either love or hate the series, there isn't a whole lot of in-between. One thing is good about Erikson - the guy spits out books at a high rate. Gardens was published in 1999 and the 7th book is due in April.
The scale of the Malazan series is staggering. It covers events on multiple continents with a patheon of gods and goddesses acting in the events of mortals and remnants of ancient races. The battles sequences are very well written. Erikson creates some memorable characters and definately hits the old heartstrings several times.
But, in the technical sense his writing isn't on par with, say, Martin. At times the books take some effort to absorb, but the effort is worth it to me. Most people either love or hate the series, there isn't a whole lot of in-between. One thing is good about Erikson - the guy spits out books at a high rate. Gardens was published in 1999 and the 7th book is due in April.
RaceBannon42
First Post
Lots of people love this series.
I'm not one of them.
I read Gardens of the Moon and didn't care for it.
I was told that DeadHouse Gates was so much better.
Read that.
I didn't like it any better.
In my opinion Erikson writes D&D novels on steroids. If thats what you like than by all means give it a shot. There are a lot of fanboys who will argue that if you don't like MBotF you just don't get it. I'd rather just leave it at tastes differ. After all I've found a lot of people that don't Like Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. Many of them seem to be the same people as the Malazan fanboys however....
Conceptually I think he's got great ideas. i just don't think he's a good enough writer to pull it off. In the interests of completeness. I'll most likely read more eventually. MoI is on my shelf.
I'm not one of them.
I read Gardens of the Moon and didn't care for it.
I was told that DeadHouse Gates was so much better.
Read that.
I didn't like it any better.
In my opinion Erikson writes D&D novels on steroids. If thats what you like than by all means give it a shot. There are a lot of fanboys who will argue that if you don't like MBotF you just don't get it. I'd rather just leave it at tastes differ. After all I've found a lot of people that don't Like Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. Many of them seem to be the same people as the Malazan fanboys however....
Conceptually I think he's got great ideas. i just don't think he's a good enough writer to pull it off. In the interests of completeness. I'll most likely read more eventually. MoI is on my shelf.
That's funny. I loved the Prince of Nothing books. I can't quite decide between them and the Malazan series as my favorite recent epic fantasies.RaceBannon42 said:After all I've found a lot of people that don't Like Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. Many of them seem to be the same people as the Malazan fanboys however....
Bakker's tighter focus and smaller cast definitely produce a more coherent and gripping story. But Erickson's sprawl is something to behold... it's a case of something being a bug and feature at the same time.
IcedEarth81
First Post
RaceBannon42 said:
I agree, tastes are different. I like the Malazan series, it's among my favorites. However, I can see the flaws and realize that some folks just don't care for it. That's fine, there are books I don't care for either. Not liking it isn't a case of not getting it, it's a case of not liking the writing style often times.
Pants
First Post
It's a good series. Despite its flaws I find the huge nature of the world, the story, the action, and the cast, well, kinda endearing. There are lots of big things going on with gods messing with mortals, mortals fighting gods, big battles, plane hopping (well, sorta...), and just all kinds of stuff that screams fantasy to me. It's fun and sometimes Erikson manages to actually create some interesting characters that pull you in.
That said, Gardens of the Moon is an incoherent mess at times. I liked it, but there were certainly points where the writing was just... not clear enough to convey WHAT exactly is going on at times. It doesn't help that Erikson tosses you into the middle of things with only vague references to who is who, what is what, why they're doing what they're doing, and so on (though I found it refreshing over the standard infodumps), but Erikson's writing is muddled enough that confusing things often become unintentionally MORE confusing.
His characters also annoy me and they're by far the biggest problem I have with the books. For every cool, unique, and fairly intriguing character there seem to be at least 2 preachy, downtrodden, cardboard cutout soldier stereotypes.
Meh. The books are good and entertaining if you like sprawling epics with the word EPIC blasted across the sky. I prefer Martin, Bakker, or Hobb, but... Erikson, yeah, he's still pretty good.
That said, Gardens of the Moon is an incoherent mess at times. I liked it, but there were certainly points where the writing was just... not clear enough to convey WHAT exactly is going on at times. It doesn't help that Erikson tosses you into the middle of things with only vague references to who is who, what is what, why they're doing what they're doing, and so on (though I found it refreshing over the standard infodumps), but Erikson's writing is muddled enough that confusing things often become unintentionally MORE confusing.
His characters also annoy me and they're by far the biggest problem I have with the books. For every cool, unique, and fairly intriguing character there seem to be at least 2 preachy, downtrodden, cardboard cutout soldier stereotypes.
Meh. The books are good and entertaining if you like sprawling epics with the word EPIC blasted across the sky. I prefer Martin, Bakker, or Hobb, but... Erikson, yeah, he's still pretty good.
Similar Threads
Trending content
-
Thread 'Happy Haggert Hurried Hungry Hitch Hiking Hired Henchmen Hivers.... apply within'- megamania
Replies: 17K -
-
-
-