|
If it wasn't mentioned there's also a re-read going on at Tor.com I wouldn't suggest it before you've read the first two books because of spoilers in comments, but now the policy is changing so it should be safer. After a reread lots more things make sense. http://www.tor.com/features/series/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen P.S. I'd suggest to add to the flow chart in the 1st post a line that from book 4 returns to book 2, and another that goes both ways between book 3 and 2  Abalieno fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Apr 3, 2011 |
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Since we're linking stuff consider also Erikson's journals if they haven't been linked before: http://lifeasahuman.com/author/stevenerikson/ And also two important articles on his own site: http://www.stevenerikson.com/index.php/the-world-of-the-malazan-empire-and-role-playing-games/ http://www.stevenerikson.com/index.php/commentary-endgame-vol-1-and-2-by-derrick-jensen/ The second is quite fundamental even if it seems to only comment some other books.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
Well, the overall structure is the part that Erikson had written down before he started the series. So it definitely has a point (which may or not be satisfying for certain readers). The arc may be slightly obfuscated because it will complete in Esslemont's books, but it is there and it's very specific. It was there all along and was never betrayed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
Yep, complete, but a bit lopsided. Erikson had to reign in certain conclusions because Esslemont joined late, so things didn't align perfectly in order to close the arc as it was intended. So you'll see the effects bleeding on the Esslemont's books that will work like an epilogue to the main series. You have yet to see the significance of what happened and its potential for the future. I'm not even sure people realize what it is that unifies the series, beside the pretext of the Crippled God.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
Another interview: http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2011/04/steven-erikson-interview.html And a couple of questions are mine. EDIT: ah, sorry, it was just posted...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
Well, that's what they mean, though. Even Tolkien has its origin in a number of antecedent mythologies that were "rewritten" by Tolkien.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Self-insert characters aren't exactly groundbreaking in the fantasy genre. The meta-narrative he refers to is mostly thematic. So himself as a character is just a small aspect (and there are more than one meta-character). Juaguocio posted:but there are also parts that are clearly taken straight from the author's GURPS campaigns, with no subtext beyond "here's some cool fantasy stuff." Actually pretty much everything he does has subtext. Especially tropes of Fantasy or of RPGs are used to turn them on their head.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Then the problem seems to be about you putting a genre not in the same league of what you consider "literature". Your definitions are as arbitrary as everyone's else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Even Karsa was a roleplayed character, but it hasn't anything "meta" about it. As I said the meta-narrative is not limited to two RPG characters, but it is thematic, about structure, use of point of view and so on. It's done on multiple levels and has a number of layers. Cotillion and Shadowthrone are not meta-characters because they were roleplayed, but because of how they are positioned in respect to the series' structure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 12:41
|
|
|
Synesthesian Fetish posted:I"m a little over a quarter of the way through book 1 and am still lost. When do things start to get more clear? After the first scene in Darujhistan you'll probably start to figure out things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Could you explain this more? I don't really see this at all. No, I can't explain But I'll give another example. His latest novella Crack'd Pot Trail, is done completely as meta-linguistic and meta-narrative. It's a novel about artist, the work of art and relationship with an audience. About artistic integrity, about criticism. And it's done in a vicious way: the artist whose performance doesn't satisfy the committee will be eaten alive and so contribute for the "well-being" of the community. All part of a pilgrimage to the Indifferent God. What Erikson does on the small level of this novella is similar in structure and approach (but not theme) to the larger series.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
Since you're wondering about "names", this is what Erikson says about them:quote:Not consciously, but a writer always observes and takes mental notes on body language, physical traits, mannerisms, patterns of speech, relationships, and so on. It all feeds into a stew with plenty of flavours. In practical terms, characters generally arrive (for me) as names first; sometimes that name describes something about the character, in a Dickensian fashion; while at other times that name runs counter to the character’s traits. Two examples would be Antsy for a nervous, agitated, paranoid character; and Tiny Chanter, for the biggest and nastiest of the Chanter brothers. Obviously, some characters arrive with names that have no earthly correlation, and there I find that the ones that sound right in my head often do so because they trigger some related (or not-so-related) image or emotion in me. In still other instances, I use names to resonate with historical, earthly personages, though usually when I do that I disguise that resonance so that only I am aware of it. Finally, some names I invent and keep only because I like the look and sound of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
the periodic fable posted:i don't care about "fantasy names" one way or the other but, wasn't it explained that T'lan comes from the word Tellan with the apostrophe added which in their language (and ours) indicates that something is missing? and in the language of the Imass the thing missing symbolised something deeper than just "there's meant to be a few letters here". i might be misremembering completely, though. Quoting Erikson again: quote:a general rule for the insertion of glottal stop apostrophes is that, in Imass language, it confers past-tense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
Juaguocio posted:When Erikson is able to pull this sort of thing off it can be nothing short of breathtaking (see Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice), but the problem as I see it is that he falls short of achieving that kind of unity more often than not. It's ironic because I'd say House of Chains and Midnight Tides are substantially more closely directed and with a sense of unity compared to MoI or DG. MoI actually sprawls too much and even Erikson admitted of having too many balls in the air to juggle. I'd also say that Erikson has one of the most recognizable and personal styles of writing. I never had the feeling of him copying anyone (maybe a certain trend of Glen Cook).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Well, Abercrombie is great, but not exactly similar to Malazan. So it's a good recommendation in general but not so fitting to someone who likes Malazan I'd rather recommend R. Scott Bakker, who at least does some similar things. While warning that he is far more vicious and brutal than Erikson.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Taken out of context it does sound pretty loving offputing, That's true for everything. It's the habit of reducing everything to poo poo. Even Martin doesn't amount to much when reduced to incest. Imho, Bakker and Erikson elevate the genre to a completely different level and are MUST READ. Not "pleasant", but that's because they aren't derivative and aren't meant to lull the reader.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Sorry, but even contextually, systematic dragon rape is a pretty loving ludicrous concept - and I don't care what your philosophic point is. Anytime you're trying to explain something and the illustration that seems most appropriate is to have families raped to death by a dragon, you need to take a nap, let the narcotics work themselves through your system, and try again in the morning. No one said that Bakker writes stuff as widely appreciated and accessible as Abercrombie. In fact I said he's far more vicious and brutal compared to Erikson. Reducing its worth to a specific scene, out of context, only proves that it goes beyond what you consider tasteful and readable. The error is assuming that your canon should then be extended to everyone else. In fact the best stuff that Bakker does is extremely subtle and happens every moment, without requiring to be made "extreme". There's violence and nasty stuff in the book, but it's not for "porn" or gratuitous. Or to be edgy. Bakker writes some of the most eye-opener stuff, and it's because it's so uncompromising that there are no restraints about it being tasteful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
A little tidbit I just read about the Warrens and other "magic systems" used in Fantasy:quote:For us, that's all we needed, and we could adjust all we liked for each character using it - potential applications are endless, unconstrained, forever fluid. It became a dynamic system where even the attempted impositions (Deck of Dragons, cults and priest-hoods) had a tendency to slip from the grasp of the users. We're not into 'systems.' We never were. We like things much messier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Juaguocio posted:I have no problem with violence, rape and philosophical masturbation, but I also like having some excitement or some levity to break up the grimness, and I found none of that in Bakker's writing. This is true. But it doesn't make a lot of sense criticizing a book for something that is not there. Bakker's books are almost half as long as one of Erikson's. They are also more focused and inflexible in pursuing their goal. They do not stray, not try to embrace the breadth of the human condition as Erikson tries to do. If there's any humor is usually of the harsh, cruel type. "Disciple of the Dog" is filled with sense of humor, yet still rather abrasive. It's his style. I'd recommend Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Lynch, if you want something that entertains while being intelligent and mature. Books that are fun to read on a page by page basis. Vividly imagined, great characters and so on. Erikson is the opposite kind. Uses the genre to go at the core of themes. Filled with mysteries and layers of significance. Desperate and unrelenting in the search of "meaning". It can entertain but the entertainment is never the only finality. It wants you to think and experience, having faith that in the telling of a story there's power that makes you a better person. Learn or feel something. Be part of the story. Bakker as I said is the eye-opener. Someone who suddenly awakened and saw the terror of reality. There's no way back: quote:"Go back to sleep? No. Never. Not even if I wanted to. Sleep is never had through wanting. It can’t be grasped like an apple to sate one’s hunger. Sleep is like ignorance or forgetfulness... The harder one strives for such things, the further they recede from one’s grasp." Want family drama woven into politics, as an intricate tapestry filled with cliffhangers and shocking moments perfectly placed to keep you turning the pages? Read Martin. Want a kind of fantasy that resembles historical fiction. With very subtle magic, if at all. Focused on an extremely vivid and realistic description and analysis of economics, logistics, technology, with characters perfectly rendered and never exalted, all bathed in perverse cynicism? Read K. J. Parker. Want the more classic of epic fantasy, with bigger than life heroes and mighty struggles, but that leaves behind the archaic baggage and purple prose, that is written with a "modern" sensibility and well balanced? Read Sanderson. Want the more exclusive "literary" elite that snobs classic "fantasy"? Read Mieville, Wolfe, Valente, Vandermeer. I mean, suggestions depend on what one wants to read. All of these names are examples of what I consider very good quality in the genre, but they are very different. As I said if you read to have a good time, as first a foremost goal, then Abercrombie or Rothfuss are to recommend more than Bakker or Erikson. They are far more accessible and do not really pretend to do so much more than "entertaining". But it doesn't mean that "pleasure", "comfort" or "escapism" have to be the only purposes in writing/reading a book. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Does anyone know what's the deal with the core of mythology? Just finished to write a comment on Tor.com reread and I'm wondering how it could all fit together. Questions like: who comes first between K'rul, Burn, the Azaths and Mother Dark? Could the world outlive Burn?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I'm nearing the end of Deadhouse Gates and I'm not sure I've read a series before this one that has as much poo poo constantly happening over the span of a long book *chuckles* It's NOTHING compared to what will hit you in Memories of Ice. That book is like a whole series packed in. quote:Doesn't hurt that there's a huge ongoing battle throughout the entire thing, goddamn. Are most of the books like this? Gardens of the Moon seemed to have more downtime As I said, the next book goes at lightspeed. From House of Chains onward there's more downtime to ponder on the events, but in some cases that downtime is the key to figure out what happens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
Bookdepository has them for about $9 each, so it would be around $80 for the first 9. Examples: http://www.bookdepository.com/Midnight-Tides-Steven-Erikson/9780765348821 http://www.bookdepository.com/Bonehunters-Steven-Erikson/9780765348838 http://www.bookdepository.com/Dust-Dreams-Steven-Erikson/9780765348869 These three are also using the new/UK covers as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Hardcover are the first to go out of print but all books were available as HC at some point. Both US and UK. I have the UK HC of books 1, 8, 9 and 10. I really wish it was possible to complete a set with a similar format.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:This. And also wool tea.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
headshot24 posted:Not skimming the thread for fear of spoiling something awesome so pardon the dumb gently caress question...is there a good summary of books 1 and 2 somewhere? I read them about a year and a half ago and read 100 pages of 3 before I lost interest, but I'm giving it another shot starting on Memories of Ice. Not exactly a summary but you can look at Tor.com reread: http://www.tor.com/features/series/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen Abalieno fucked around with this message at 23:47 on May 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:The main problem with the names might be the whole 'GURPS game from 1980s' phenomenon. A lot of the names are just random things Erikson came up with while he was DMing or rolling up characters on the fly and they stuck. Huh? The names Erikson uses have a lot in common with Dickens, if anything. That's a very obvious influence that he even acknowledged. Not sure Dickens copied names from GURPS.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
I guess it's better to quote Erikson himself at this point:quote:In practical terms, characters generally arrive (for me) as names first; sometimes that name describes something about the character, in a Dickensian fashion; while at other times that name runs counter to the character’s traits. Two examples would be Antsy for a nervous, agitated, paranoid character; and Tiny Chanter, for the biggest and nastiest of the Chanter brothers. Obviously, some characters arrive with names that have no earthly correlation, and there I find that the ones that sound right in my head often do so because they trigger some related (or not-so-related) image or emotion in me. In still other instances, I use names to resonate with historical, earthly personages, though usually when I do that I disguise that resonance so that only I am aware of it. Finally, some names I invent and keep only because I like the look and sound of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Happened to be watching a movie tonight, "The Long, Hot Summer". You must be wrong. I thought it was this: 
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:I got Korebalin Who's that guy? 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
I was writing some comments on Tor re-read, so I thought about asking for opinions here. KEEP IT SPOILER FREE, as I'm not looking for plot details, but just for overall/thematic structure. The line of thought is this: what is that drives the purpose and meaning of the series? One of the central themes of the series is that history is continuous and doesn't have a beginning and end. But then to tell a story you have to divide it into discrete pieces, and the way you make this division is the way you decide to interpret it and give it meaning. So why ten books? As each book tells a relatively self contained story, the whole series, as a collection of ten books, must have a central idea or theme that defines it. A beginning and an end. What is this central idea that drives the whole series and makes it something "finished"? What is the concept, idea, theme or character that unifies it? The first answer a reader could have is: the Crippled God. The CG is what set the plot into movement, as its fate determines the conclusion of the series. Is the "Malazan Book of the Fallen" the story of the Crippled God? My idea comes from those questions. I think that the central conflict in the series is another, and that the Crippled God is only one of the pieces involved in a bigger game. An important one, but not the central one. And if I wanted to choose another that is more "representative" then I would pick Paran.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Yeah, Electronico6 and Loving Life Partner nailed it. Especially if you join these two answers together. "Compassion" sure, is a theme along the whole series, but it's not something that could justify why the story is divided like that. You can tell a story about compassion even in just one book. So it is a central theme but also one among others.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:It's also full of foreshadowing and you get to read Erikson raging at Capitalism. Actually not, as Erikson explained here  http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/feature/steven-eriksons-notes-on-a-crisis-part-x-if-it-hurts-like-hell/ quote:The reason this subject is on my mind is that, once again, I have been asked in a Q&A whether that empire and its political and economic system was intended as a commentary on the United States. Each time I am asked this question, my response is no.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Well, yes. The point is that Erikson considers Capitalism just one example of a more general pattern, which is the real theme he writes about. So it's not strictly a critics on Capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 07:57
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:Just finished TCG. Part of me wants to read anything but fantasy Elaborate?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:I would say it gets worse from your perspective and that it isn't your thing so I would move on. I have a similar perspective. I'm halfway through Midnight Tides, but House of Chains was the best book for me. Action != plot movement, and HoC was PACKED with revelations. The internal journeys of characters are also becoming the most significant part, so if a reader doesn't follow on that level then it's better to stop reading. Not sure how one can say that HoC is only introducing a couple of characters. It does almost everything on every level. Even making a list is almost impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
Funny how I just finished commenting how Kallor is a shallow character (as of MoI).Fargo Fukes posted:All the characters talk about how awesome he is but I could've done with some evidence There's plenty of evidence. In fact every scene from his PoV is meant to do that. I have the opposite opinion: it's shown so much that it makes it unnatural. There's absolutely nothing "abstract" with him being considered the way he is. In fact the scene where he and Rake face the witches is made entirely to show WJ's choices and how those choices make an impact on the rest of the army. You just can't have more explicit "evidence" than that. The problem about "not caring" overall is that Malazan is written without "slices of life" scenes, so there's not much traditional space to sympathize with the characters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
Fargo Fukes posted:I'm really not fussed about more revelations about a D&D campaign setting. I'm sorry to say this, but your problem seem to be one of prejudice. It's quite obvious that you don't consider yourself as the target audience because you believe the target audience is the same of the D&D campaign setting. The problem is there, it's the opposite. If you are there for the action scenes then most of every book will feel like a burden.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Fargo Fukes posted:This is definitely something that bothered me too. Even the 'cool' characters aren't, well... characters. If you had to describe Fiddler's personality without mentioning that he's a sapper, what do you say? It's the other way. It's the fictional characters that are usually easy to narrow down in a pattern. Fiction = simplification and reduction to a recognizable/familiar type. Fiddler has no "perceivable" personality in GotM because he appears in an handful of pages and never as PoV, he gets plenty of personality in DG. What I mean is that what you describe isn't something relative to good or bad writing, but relative to writing styles. Most fiction has a spotlight on a character. You get to know who they are, their previous life, aspirations, fears and so on. Once you get a full grasp on the character then the plot starts to move. Erikson instead writes no "slice of life" scenes. There's almost nothing resembling a traditional form of narration. What you get is scenes and fragments, and only from what you see in those scenes you can gleam facets of a character. Without a full spotlight, characters only develop proportionally to the scenes they are in, and progressively as you put together the pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Masonity posted:The only swap I could see working would have been Pust and Shadowthrone. Just because they talk funny doesn't make them swappable. And they even talk funny in completely different ways.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Ccs posted:Yeah, all the soldiers definitely seem to speak with the same voice. I mean, Stonny's tone is basically the same as Picker which is the same as the two female marines with Silverfox. They all just sound the same. Stonny's bickering with Gruntle is nowhere Picker and Paran. Not even close beside the fact that both are "disrespectful" and defiant. The two female marines instead play games and deceive through their sense of humor, which isn't for the purpose of being defiant. All three examples have in common the fact that they do not bow to power, but they all do from their own, specific perspective. For the handful of pages they get the characterization is brilliant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 05:13
|
|