Steven Erikson: "Memories of Ice"<A critique, and a thread on style and criticism>

[barsoomcore]

All I'm going to say is I disagree with the review in its entirety.

Memories of Ice easily ranks as one of the greatest fantasy novels I've ever read. One of the greatest novels, period. What Erikson accomplishes in this book astonishes me. He's using the fantasy form to really talk about ideas and themes that could not be discussed in any other form. He NEEDS 200,000-year-old characters. He NEEDS people of godlike power. He NEEDS hundreds of different characters, each with their own traumas and quests and desires.

He maybe doesn't NEED a continent that looks like a cucumber, but it looks sufficiently like the southern half of Africa that this is just a silly argument anyway.

It takes a long time to describe his scenes because he WANTS you to spend a long time in these scenes. He wants you to sink into his world, not to zip along from plot point to plot point. Brevity, in the Malazan Book of the Fallen, is not a virtue. It's like the first half of Fellowship of the Ring -- it's slow and dull and not much happens -- and that's what gives the rest of the story its power.

Now these styles aren't for everyone. Obviously they aren't for you. And I'll agree that it takes a lot of patience and perseverence to get through Erikson's books.

But if you haven't gotten to, say, the end of the battle for Capustan, to the climax of Itkovian's story, to the revelations of Quick Ben -- you're missing out, is all I'll say.

I cannot recommend Steven Erikson highly enough. He is the first new writer since Cook and Brust appeared in the 80's to actually draw me back into fantasy. I've tried Jordan and I've tried Martin and neither appealed. Mieville I don't think very much of. Gaiman's okay but I don't look forward to his next book with anticipation.

Erikson? I'm hooked. Big time.

 

[jester47]

Thanks for the thoughts BC...

I like the 200,000 year old characters, the uber-characters, and the variety that he offers. But I find that even minor characters are getting major character treatment. Granted maybe he has tons of major characters. I am still trying to decide if I like that or not. I tend to pay more attention to characters when what is written about them is proportional to the story. Granted, I have never tried reading a story so long as these. So it could just be what I am used to shining through in my opinion.

It takes a long time to describe his scenes because he WANTS you to spend a long time in these scenes. He wants you to sink into his world, not to zip along from plot point to plot point. Brevity, in the Malazan Book of the Fallen, is not a virtue. It's like the first half of Fellowship of the Ring -- it's slow and dull and not much happens -- and that's what gives the rest of the story its power.

I do not think that if the prose was shorter that I would spend more or less time in the scene... While reading this, I found that I sink further into a Moorcock chapter than I do any of these (and my problem with moorcock is that he does not describe enough!) Zippiness and brevity is not what I am looking for but rather an economics of conveyence.

Another factor may be that I am really impatient. There are a lot of books on "the list" and if somthing does not grab me right away, then I am prone to drop it.

But I really need to make it clear that it is not the story or the characters that are driving me away. Its the pacing and the arrangement more than anything else. I like the undead demons he created, I really like how magic works in his world, I really like the descriptions he gave of the city run by thieves (the concept of what happens to caravans that get stuck...). Its just that the presentation is driving me bonzo. Perhaps the fact that I feel talked down to in the way he describes or arranges the words. Perhaps I should read Gardens of the Moon.

I think I should also make things clear that this is a rough draft of the review. The input you guys are giving me is invaluable and already has made for a better review. Once I get what I say here into it I think it will get closer to fair. In fact I think this might be my method of review writing from here on out. Post a visceral initial thought review and slowly revise it to fit what I really think based on my explanations of what I said.

As for the term "Tome Tosser," I concieved the phrase more as a quick way to describe a way of writing. Martin, in my opinion is almost in a grey area. But it is really not meant as a derogatory statement, just a descriptive one.

Thanks!

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

Also BC, you said this:

But if you haven't gotten to, say, the end of the battle for Capustan, to the climax of Itkovian's story, to the revelations of Quick Ben -- you're missing out, is all I'll say.

and it made me think. (thanks)

It seems to me that his stories would be more interesting if all the different parts were presented in a connected narative. That is we get Quick Ben's revelation, the battle of Capustan etc. as separate books presented in continuous narrative.

And that reveals to me a theory I have about chapters and books in a larger work. While it is the writers perogative to present the story in any way he or she sees fit, I have always had the belief that a chapter should NEVER change subjects. Want to change subjects, start a new chapter. And this is somthing that I think Erikson could do better.

And that is somthing that I need to add to the review.

Aaron.

 

[drothgery]

But you are right, I should take out the alarming part. That is largely a perception of Jordan, its seems like every time I turn around there are two new Jordan books, and I work in a book store!!! However the definition and flippance are not intended to be part of the review. I will mark that clear in the post with the review.

... which, incidentally, is largely wrong. There's been at least two years between Wheel of Time novels since book 6 (and we're on book 10 now). Some repackaging (the first book has been split in two and packaged as a couple of young adult books), the big book of bad art (The World of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time), the RPG, the novella in the Legends anthology, and the expansion of that novella into a short novel (New Spring) make it look like he's written a lot more than he actually has.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

Just to note I'm completely in agreement with Barsoomcore on Erikson. I really like his work when many "tome tossers" aren't my taste (i.e. Goodkind) and I long ago gave up on Jordan.

But then again I like Martin and Mieville so maybe my standards are low.

I think his writing is better and more literary than most of his peers. So I definitely don't get the feeling that he is talking down to me as a reader. If anything, this, combined with the fact that he rarely spells the aspects of his worldbuilding, leaving it for the reader to piece together, makes it feel like more of a challenge to his reader.

 

[jester47]

Just to note I'm completely in agreement with Barsoomcore on Erikson. I really like his work when many "tome tossers" aren't my taste (i.e. Goodkind) and I long ago gave up on Jordan.

But then again I like Martin and Mieville so maybe my standards are low.

I think his writing is better and more literary than most of his peers. So I definitely don't get the feeling that he is talking down to me as a reader. If anything, this, combined with the fact that he rarely spells the aspects of his worldbuilding, leaving it for the reader to piece together, makes it feel like more of a challenge to his reader.

Thats how it was described to me also. It may be my expectations were higher than normal because I was led to believe that this was going to be some really good writing with a Glen Cook, serious swords and sorcery feel. When I did not get that (well I did, but not in the dose I was expecting) It may have also colored my perceptions.

Hrm. food for thought.

 

[Mistwell]

I bought the Erikson books, on recommendation here at EnWorld, about a year ago. They cost a pretty penny, since at the time they were not being published in the US, and had to be purchased through the amazon UK site.

I have to say, I couldn't get into them. That doesn't mean I have totally given up. However, I made an honest and serious attempt to read the first book, and it bored me to death to the point where it was torture just to pick it back up again. So, it's still sitting on my shelves, along with the other books in the series, mostly untouched.

I'm sure some day I will make the attempt again, since so many people rave about them...but I dread it like the first time I tried to read the Silmarillion when I was a teen...

 

[CCamfield]

Steven Erikson's world/writing does contain similarities with Cook, but more in terms of a darker tone than a terseness of style - which actually in the case of Cook was more a matter of Croaker's style. I found the later Black Company books just as wordy as Steven Erikson, and actually less interesting to me. Particularly Sleepy's.

I personally do not see a swords & sorcery connection to either author's works, unless maybe you go back to Cook's Dread Empire series from the 70s.

I don't know what possessed you to read Memories of Ice out of order. Yeah, the books are somewhat more independent than books in other series, but it is still a series and characters reappear, particularly the Bridgeburners in MoI. And I'm amazed that you can harp so much on the negatives while passing over the good stuff that was in MoI.

Still, your opinion is not an unreasonable one and I'm not trying to say it's invalid. Certainly people have commented on Erikson's "penchant" for names (although I think your criticism of "Rath'name" forms is overly picky, as it's kind of like "van Richtoffen", not that intrusive), and the books are wordy. The first book, as Mistwell mentions, takes a long time to get started. (If you can get to the halfway mark, M, I think you'll find the second half a lot more exciting.)

I personally think that it pays off, though. To each their own.

 

[Davek]

I have read all four of Erikson's series at least 3 time each... in the last year. It would be safe to say I am a fan .

One thing that struck me was how much I missed in each reading, yet after each reading I thought it was one of the best books I had read. To be fair, I think the sublty and detail may be too much for anyone to fully grasp in a single reading, but that doesn't prevent the books from being extremely entertaining.

On long multy book series, there was a time when I didn't even consider buying a novel unless it had at least 500 pages, because there was too much trash out there and my funds were limited. I read fast, and want more than a couple of hours of reading out of any book I spend money on.

Say what you want about Erikson's books, but I do not think that any other author has developed as deep and detailed world as his, and I hate to say it, but I think that includes Tolkien.

 

[barsoomcore]

Since you're looking for input on your review, jes, let me jump in with some comments:

Since I have already stated what I think is good about the book, I will now detail the reasons I probably will not finish it:

I would never take any review seriously by somebody who hadn't finished the book. If you can't finish it, you can't finish it, but I'm going to be awfully skeptical of your opinions, knowing you haven't read the book. Unless your review features facts, I'm not likely to pay much attention.

In my opinion using made up languages should not be attempted if you do not have a solid (read PhD) background in the language. Some of the annoyances for example are: Rath' means priest. So we have a slew of Characters with the Rath'Name for thier name. This is stupid. Why not just use the word "priest" or find a word that already exists that connotes ecclesiastical rank? Then there is "Ullid" meaning "cavalry," and "lites" meaning infantry. "Betak" means "medium." So in this book we have the "Betakullid" and the "Betaklites." You guessed it, Medium Infantry and Medium Cavalry. Why this waste of time and mental effort? It is in my opinion a copout for characterising the fighting force.

You are clearly wrong on this general point. In many cases Erikson does use the words "Priest", "cavalry", "infantry" and "medium". Obviously there is a purpose to his use of these specialized terms in these cases. Is he telling us that these are archaic terms or foreign loan words? Well, we know, for example, that the Rath Council in Capustan are of foreign descent -- there's something about them that makes them a little weird (check the final resolution of Rath'Fener). Perhaps his use of the term "Rath" rather than priest is meant to give us an idea of the reaction of characters like Quick Ben or Whiskeyjack (who seem a little more "normal") upon meeting or hearing of these priests.

There are two possibilities: either Erikson doesn't know what he's doing, or he does. You prefer the former interpretation, I prefer the latter. I submit that the evidence supports both interpretations (especially if you only read one book -- having read FIVE I think I can safely say the evidence weighs against your interpretation rather clearly).

Erikson's work is redundant and it shows how little he knows of how languages work: the key point here is that english only borrows when it does not have the word.

This is a funny sort of statement. Can you back it up? Noting, for example, that the very word "cavalry" is in fact a borrowing from French. Why use "cavalry" when "horsemen" will do just fine? The English language has been, to my experience, a greedy one that takes in multiple terms from multiple sources for identical concepts.

I think your characterisation of the English language is incorrect, and that therefore your objection to Erikson's technique is without basis.

The next problem, and a little more severe is the prose style.

Well, this is a matter of taste. You prefer tighter stories, fair enough. This is the first time you mention this.

Erikson wants very much to be seen as cool, in, with it.

If you want your review to be taken seriously, you have to take all this stuff out of it. You don't know what Erikson wants. Don't pretend you do. You know what he wrote. You're just making this up to support your attack -- and everyone who reads this will know that, and will lose respect for your opinion thereby.

If you consider large portions of the story irrelevant, say so. Don't speculate on Erikson's motives -- who cares? This is the second time you mention that the writing is too expansive.

We don't need a description of one character pleasuring another durring a meeting because they were bored.

We do if it shows us how another character feels about one of the two involved. Did you miss that? I guess if you'd finished the book it might have come out.

We don't need a third of a page of a barbarian woman coming on to an old man.

We do if it's going to pay off as one of the funniest scenes in the whole series later on.

In a similar vein we get a lot of poseing, screenshots, and other "cool" scenes. While cool scenes are nice, obviously arranging things in the story just so you can make one happen is no good.

Point out one case of this happening. Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, and frankly, I think you're misrepresenting the book rather greviously.

The next problem is the narrative. (snip) Trimming down the subplots would make for a more solid narrative that was easier to follow. (snip) Erikson however seems to find it important that we identify with numerous characters and find all his plots interesting.

Yes, you think the story should be tighter. This is the only actual comment you've made on the book so far -- you've made it three times now.

I don't know what your intended audience is for this review, but as it stands, I don't think it succeeds as a serious review of a novel. You have one real objection to the book -- which is that the writing is insufficiently tight for you. -- and you have spun that out into three seemingly separate "points", each of which is only repeating what the other said. Your speculations on Erikson's character only weaken your position, and your statements on the nature of languages don't convince me.

Finally, I have to repeat that any review by a reader who hasn't finished the book is not a review that deserves to be taken seriously. At least finish the book if you want to write a review to which people will give credence.

I hope this doesn't come off as all cranky and defensive, Aaron. I don't feel the need to defend Erikson particularly -- all I want is for him to be successful enough to finish the series, which I think is pretty much in the can already. If nobody else in the world likes him, that's okay with me. But if this is meant to be a serious review, I think it needs some serious work.

That said, I rather like the term "Tome Tosser".