Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Malazan Book of the Fallen

  1. #1

    Default The Malazan Book of the Fallen

    I'm nearing the end of the tenth and final book of the main series. With only about thirty pages left out of around 10,000, I felt like taking a short break to honour my favourite fantasy series--and my favourite fantasy author--with a review.

    I started this journey shortly after the second novel was published. In the series opener, Gardens of the Moon, I discovered a promising author and a fantasy world that seemed different from anything I'd previously encountered. Clearly this was a very creative author, an accomplished world-builder, and I reckoned the series could be a worthwhile investment.

    In the second novel, Deadhouse Gates, I discovered an author who was not only a world-builder but also a masterful storyteller. He had a gift for humor and horror and tragedy, which he wielded in ways I'd never seen. His palette was vast and nuanced, and I found he could do justice to more than just soldiers and gods. He destroyed lives, butchered societies, repeatedly betrayed my trust and my hope. But the rewards were as great as the punishment. I discovered to my pleasure that this world was more vast, more rich, more detailed than I could've imagined. I discovered that, for all his ruthlessness, this was an author who had a heart. Who loved the story we were sharing. He rewarded me with touching friendship, with loyalty, with harsh and satisfying justice. As he toppled societies he raised heroes, of which most other fantasy heroes were faint shadows.

    Satisfying though it may have been, Deadhouse Gates was also exhausting. I approached the third novel, Memories of Ice, with hesitation. In this third novel I discovered an author who had just gotten started. He couldn't just create worlds and deliver fantastic action and humor. He wove stories within stories, spanning anything from minutes to eons, with each story giving meaning and color to the greater story that contained it. He pulled the breaks on his engines of horror and tragedy, but then directed them with finesse. Through perfect pacing he delivered one climactic event after another. Though much of this book was an orgy of cruelty and violence--though it was more macabre by far than the two preceding novels--the central themes of compassion and of forgiveness were well served. The betrayals were many and very hurtful, but there was a good vibe in there, and I felt I could trust this author.

    Memories of Ice lent more depth and detail to the first two novels, and I felt like everything was about to come together. What more could this author offer except more of the same? Slaughter, humor and larger-than-life characters? Wasn't it time to begin wrapping things up? In the fourth novel, House of Chains, I discovered a devious and manipulative author who would not be constrained by my expectations. In this novel, he got personal, took us inside the hearts and minds of new characters the likes of which I simply hadn't seen coming. Deeply immersed in each member of this motley cast of human and non-human characters, I was shown this world anew. And, suddenly, I didn't know what to think about anything. Never mind who was good and who was evil. I didn't know what was good and what was evil in this story. What causes deserved my loyalty? Who did I trust? Who did I like? These questions, that had for me always been relatively easy to answer in the fantasy context, were now impossible challenges. The dry humor that permeated the entire novel made this uncertainty easier to bear, but the knowledge that I had no idea where this series was going was unsettling. In retrospect, I realise this novel is the one that first hints at the questions asked in the final novel, at the point of the whole series. I buckled down for a difficult ride.

    But there's just no preparing for Erikson. In the fifth novel, Midnight Tides, I was plopped down onto a whole new continent, with a whole new cast of characters, a new set of rules, and with little sense of where I was in the greater story. I slowly realised that House of Chains was relatively far in my future, and I was therefore really very far from home. Everything was a little tainted, sordid, in this new place. Everything from little villages to the capital of an empire ruled entirely and ruthlessly by the idea of money. In this novel I discovered an author who was not above extensive and multifaceted social commentary, but who still treated his characters as more than mere mouthpieces for ideology. The ambiguity introduced in HoC flourished in this novel. Hopelessness, madness, treachery. It's a damned good thing that this book also provided more humor, more friendship, more love than did those before it. But where was this going?

    I believe the sixth novel, The Bonehunters, marks a turning point for the series. From here on, everything begins to come together. I realise now how important the novel was for transitioning the greater story into the final act, but at the time I was relatively frustrated by the plot throughout most of this novel. The novels that follow, however, are the most satisfying novels in the series. The writing is tight, purposeful, challenging and varied without getting in the way of the story. By this point Erikson has written men, women, soldiers, gods of every kind, immortals, revenants, ghosts, sentient lizards... The pacing seems to take into account all the remaining novels. All the strands from the first six novels are woven together, and there is a clear sense of the inexorable race towards... towards... what, exactly? None of this feels pointless--with the possible exception of one story-arc--but what is the point? Why are the Bonehunters going where they're going, doing what they're doing?

    I've spent much time over the past few years musing on the answers to my many questions about this series. I should have been musing on the questions instead. Every single book was preparing me for the questions I should have been asking, as well as for their answers. The clues were there, the nudges were there. The whole time I was being manipulated, though gently and with respect. I'm a little surprised to find that I'm not irritated by this, not frustrated by the unfair advantage the author has over me... but then, it has been a very enjoyable journey and an honest challenge--and almost every step on the road to its resolution has made sense. In the final act of this story, we are faced with one question that overshadows all others: what fate has mankind earned? But the jury's still out on that one...

    It's rare to find an author in this genre who doesn't cheat, who doesn't take shortcuts, who neither underestimates his readers nor allows himself to be hampered by their limitations. Who quietly invites a little patience, faith, attention to detail... and offers for that investment handsome rewards. I think it's because of these qualities of Erikson that I find myself, at the end of this long journey, supremely satisfied. If you like fantasy, and if you're up for it, I warmly recommend these novels.
    Last edited by Aimless; 04-24-2011 at 07:29 PM.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The writing is tight, purposeful, challenging and varied without getting in the way of the story.
    I'm a huge fan of the series. Don't get me wrong he's right up there with Martin, Jordan and Tolkien in world building. Some of the dialogue is hilarious and he weaves an interesting story. But I would never in a million years call his writing "tight." He himself admitted the last two books really should have been one book but it just got out of hand and no one would let him publish a 2k page book. Its really hard to care about some of the minor characters and the dialogue that they have, I've caught myself skimming through parts of his books. Partially because the rest of the book was so frakin awesome that I wanted to get to it but a lot has to do with not caring about the millionth minor character and their inane point of views.

    I also recommend the novels but readers should be aware of the pros and cons.

    PRO: Great world. Great characters. (Rake, Tehol, Bugg, Krupp, Ublala) "Epic" is an understatement. The end of each book almost always has a jaw dropping spectacular finish. There really aren't any books like Path of Daggers or Crossroads of Twilight (two books in WOT that were ugly slogs where almost nothing happened).

    CON: Some very depressing scenes. Long winded in many cases. HUGE cast of characters. (Some would say this is a pro but it can be difficult to remember folks from two years ago when you last read the book they were in) Novels not fully chronological.

  3. #3
    By "tight" I mean that his writing isn't sloppy. Sentences, word-choice, etc. This is especially true of Toll the Hounds. The last novels are extremely long due in large part to his insistence on maintaining very many story arcs and then taking them to their necessary conclusions.

    I myself could have done without the entire story-arc that culminated in the defense of Kharkanas, as well as most of the Redmask plot. That stuff felt almost like a whole novel's worth of text, but for the most part it isn't sloppy text.

    He also gives many of the soldiers extra screen-time in the last two books, in payment for their long and faithful service. Depending on how you feel about these soldiers that may or may not be a worthwhile investment. I love all those bastards so for me those vignettes were very nice esp. Nefarias Bredd.

    Re. characters, I learned some years ago, to my great dismay, that many of his characters are... well, pretty polarising. A lot of people can't stand Kruppe for example.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  4. #4
    Bump because I'm re-reading the series. Anyone else ever pick up these books?

  5. #5
    Might have to give this a try.

    Have had a wee binge on Neal Asher recently, stepped sideways unsuccessfully into Neal Stephenson, have Peter Hamilton's latest lined up next, then am looking for something new.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  6. #6
    You definitely have to give it a try, read the first two books at least before deciding!

    I haven't read the ones written by his partner.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    Might have to give this a try.

    Have had a wee binge on Neal Asher recently, stepped sideways unsuccessfully into Neal Stephenson, have Peter Hamilton's latest lined up next, then am looking for something new.
    Erikson is indeed an enjoyable read, so it might be worth a try if you like military fantasy. I think by far the best part about the series is the scope: there are hints of a vast universe of which this story is only a small part, and it appears that a lot of thought has gone into creating the world. The detail and complexity can at times be astounding. It also has fantastic characters; well-fleshed out, believable, and engaging. Two standouts for me were Karsa Orlong and Tehol Beddict, though there are a number of other excellent ones. It's also reasonably well written and has some decent social commentary. It is even, on occasion, laugh-out-loud funny, which is impressive given its fairly depressing subject matter.

    I recently began a re-read (currently in book 7) and have found some beefs that become more obvious upon revisiting it. First, there are some annoying writing tricks that tend to get overused: intentional vagueness/obfuscation in order to draw out tension and allow for a big reveal, some retconning (both blatant and more subtle) to address some early issues with the plotting/world building, and pruning of storylines by the simple expedient of killing people off. He also overuses certain tropes - the world-weary warrior, the lonely hero, the tribal chieftains/shamans/etc. Finally, there is too much that is 'appalling' in power - magical or speed/strength/prowess with weapons. This is a key point - so much of the books follow, essentially, army grunts who are thrown into situations way above their pay grades. That's fine as far as it goes, but when you keep on introducing these overwhelmingly powerful forces, they tend to resolve plotlines as an ongoing series of deus ex machinas where much of the preceding exposition with the puny grunts ends up being irrelevant. The journey to get there is certainly interesting, and at least Erikson addresses this issue head on, but it can be quite frustrating to read.

    This is far, far better than the vast majority of military fantasy out there. People swear by Glen Cook et al but they don't hold a candle to this; most of that stuff is pulpy trash (albeit occasionally entertaining), but Erikson's novels deserve some real attention. But they aren't perfect.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post

    He also overuses certain tropes - the world-weary warrior, the lonely hero, the tribal chieftains/shamans/etc. Finally, there is too much that is 'appalling' in power - magical or speed/strength/prowess with weapons. This is a key point - so much of the books follow, essentially, army grunts who are thrown into situations way above their pay grades. That's fine as far as it goes, but when you keep on introducing these overwhelmingly powerful forces, they tend to resolve plotlines as an ongoing series of deus ex machinas where much of the preceding exposition with the puny grunts ends up being irrelevant. The journey to get there is certainly interesting, and at least Erikson addresses this issue head on, but it can be quite frustrating to read.
    I agree completely on the 'world weary warrior' trope being used FAR too often. I have to disagree on the idea that the grunts are useless. Especially with his inclusion of sappers and their band of destruction that can wreck things that normally they shouldn't be able to take. Plus even some of the very best warriors can get taken out with a knife in the back by some jerkoff hasbeen... (but I'm not bitter or anything).

  9. #9
    I guess what bothers me is the sheer number of times when magery carried the day and infantry was more or less useless - off the top of my head, that includes Pale, Coral, Raraku, the entire Letherii campaign, etc. There are a few instances where the grunts get their moment to shine - Capustan, Y'Ghatan (sorta), the Chain of Dogs, maybe-sorta the Awl, but even in these instances sorcery was a large chunk of enabling the victory. You have to wonder why the Empire doesn't just train a bunch of assassin-mages and forget about troops for conquest.

    Even ignoring the outright battles, there are lots of times when Erikson overuses the deus ex machina to frustrating effect - maybe it's Quick Ben or Ganoes Paran pulling some surprise out of their hats, or the coincidental appearance of some wildly powerful being (such coincidence being waved away by calling it a 'convergence'), or just throwing Icarium into the mix, who is a walking deus ex machina. It sometimes got a little ridiculous trying to figure out actually how good/powerful each of these characters/groups were - I felt like I was in the middle of an interminable argument over which superhero would win in a fight.

    This isn't a damning critique; I really like the books. But I think it's a fair one, nonetheless. There are large sections of his books that focus on bit players interacting with each other, often on the march to some dread battle. That's fine as far as it goes, it gives you the 'slice of life' feel and it is generally entertaining to boot. But when 90% of these characters either die in sorcerous conflagration or, alternatively, are utterly irrelevant for the battle's outcome, you realize that you just wasted 100 pages on, well, ambiance. I really got annoyed about this while I was rereading the Bonehunters before the siege of Y'Ghatan (I won't explain more for concerns about spoilers, but I'm sure you get my meaning.)

    It's almost like Erikson couldn't quite decide if he was engaged in a world building exercise of epic scale or if he was writing a traditional military fantasy. The interface between the heady realm of ascendants, High Mages, and first heroes and the more prosaic stories of hard-bitten infantrymen was not always a smooth one.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  10. #10
    Fair enough, I can see where you are coming from with magic > soldiery. Considering I like series like Riftwar Cycle and Wheel of Time it doesn't bother me too much. Which makes it all the interesting when something turns that dynamic around. (The scene where one arrow effectively takes out 3 mages was amusing).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •