I finished (and started) the Malazan books recently - reading them essentially in a oner from before Christmas till now. I wanted to see what people thought about the series as a whole and whether it worked or not.
It sort of goes without saying that anyone who got to the end must be at least fairly happy with the overall quality - you’d need to be one hell of a voracious reader to plough through the ten malazan books if you didn’t rate them. I thought the books were a great success at the micro level, with all but one being fun to read, page-turners, engrossing etc. Toll the hounds was the only notable failure in the series IMHO.
At the macro-level, of having a grand story arc and overall coherence I’d say things started out exceptionally well, then went pear-shaped from book 6 onwards, threatened to go totally to shit with book 8, but the ship was steadied with the last 2. I should say that I consider achieveing this sort of grand design over 10 massive books to be next to impossible, so if at the end of the road things sort of make sense then that’s probably a triumph. The writer must feel like the captain of an oil tanker getting everything moving in the direction he wants. But still, I’m left with a feeling that Erikson let things get a bit out of hand. Anyone else agree or disagree with this analysis?
If I could put my finger on one major structural flaw it would be Erikson writing himself into a corner with the undying-Rhulad story. Now this was a superb storyline, but it went on way too long and didn’t have any real closure re the CG - resulting in a major loss of tempo in the books that lead to the very weak toll the hounds and its bogus sub-plots. This meant the last 2 books, which were epic in their own way, felt very stand-alone with respect to the CG re-imagining. This weakness was again apparent with the ending. I have no problem at all with loose ends, mysteries etc because how do you conclude a ten book monster like the Malazan books with its hundreds of characters? You need some sort of exclamation, though, and the ending of the CG’s story was emphatically not that.
So, worth emphasising that the books are easily the best long fantasy series I’ve read - loved reading them in the main. But it is interesting to look at the overall narrative and see what worked. Any thoughts?
Largely agree. Where I disagree is that the ship was steadied in the last two. I thought the final book was a mess and the ending unsatisfying. So, no - I don’t think he pulled it off in the end ;). Quite.
But he got close which I think was quite an achievement. It’s a good series and I say that as quite a complement, because as you said ( essentially ) even maintaining “good” over ten large novels is a substantial achievement. Of the two frequently compared fantasists Martin and Erikson, I prefer Martin stylistically. Partly because I prefer more backroom machination to more action and partly because I think he is far better at character development ( note, not the same as character creation - Erikson created some great characters ). But kudos to Erikson for his productivity, he has thoroughly whipped Martin’s ass in that category.
I actually was most pleased with the Lether-based story-lines ( and maybe the Darujihistan stuff after that ), but I will say they were pretty telegraphed, so I kinda get your unhappiness with the Rhulad thing. I suspect we all pretty much knew where that was going. But I thought he did a good job of running that one entertainingly. My biggest annoyance was Tavore - I simply could not work up any interest in her or her story-lines at all. She was like a big lead weight on the page, which may have contributed heavily to my unhappiness with the finale, which I found both rushed and kinda incoherent ( the Fener’s blood thing? WTF? ).
So a good series, many of the books of which I enjoyed. But it failed to congeal for me in the end.
Very good Fener’s appearance also points to the failure to find a convincing role for the mighty Karsa Orlong in the finale, and you could say similar for Icarium.
I thought the series as a whole was fantastic. I don’t really agree with things getting out of hand, possibly because I get too engrossed in the tale to notice such things.
Are we including Ian Cameron Esslemont’s books? He’s got a new one out by the way. As I said in my sadly neglected thread last week:
Anyway, as far as Erikson’s ten main books go, I’m very much of the same opinion as Tamerlane. Tavore’s storyline was my least favourite of the lot, and I was a bit disappointed in the ending. Obviously mileages vary, as a friend of mine whose just finished the lot thought the ending was great.
Bump for this one to see if any other Malazan readers want to chime in.
I’ve not read any of Esslemont’s books - will probably pick them up later in the year. Although the reviews do seem a bit mixed.
Bit Malazaned out after finishing the series tbh - I thought it was a great idea to read them all smoothly in sequence but I ended up flagging with it in parts. It’s nice not to have to keep jogging your memory, but ideally I’d have liked to have read them in phase with Erikson writing them. Let them sit for a while, maybe a skim re-read before the next one. Especially as he’s so productive.
I’m about half way through the last book. I thought the series as a whole was breathtaking. Great characters, great ideas, and so far i like the way the last book is bringing so many disparate threads together.
That being said, I thought the whole Letherii storyline was a waste. I almost didn’t pick up the last book because I was sick to death of everything Letherii.
I loved the earlier books; the Whirlwind story arc, Karsa Orlong, the Tlan Imass and Darujistan were terrific.
I’ve read a few of the Esslement books (but not the latest). I found them very satisfying stand alone books set in the same world. Frankly there was less of the existential angst I found so maddening in the Erikson books. Tighter stories, easier to keep track of characters too!
I liked having wizards that can use thermonuclear level magic instead of more subtle stuff like other fantasy series and be young and cocky instead of old and wise. Ericsson managed to make the storylines for lowly grunts as interesting or more than the larger than life characters. A few things seemed tacked on at the end just to have all characters from all the different storylines have a role in the end, but other than that i was very happy overall with the series and heartily recommend it to anyone who asks. Also, the guy wrote ten books in the time Martin did two, that counts for a lot too.
Yeah the awesomely powerful wizards are a lot of fun. But at times it seemed that powerful beings lurked behind every rock and shrub. Which sometimes got a bit tiresome.
Esslemont’s books fill in the gaps nicely to Erikson’s main tale. As **Krisolov ** points out above they’re more focussed and don’t drift off into the philosphical as much as the later books of Erikson.
On a different note, what are everyone’s favourite books and story lines from the Erikson books (to avoid spoilers for those who haven’t read the Esslemont books yet)?
Personally I think Deadhouse Gates remains my favourite of the ten. It just seems to work best as a novel. Coltaine’s epic march, Felisin’s story, Gessler and Stormy’s voyage through the warrens, our introduction to Icarium and Mappo it’s a great ride.
Having said that my favourite storyline is Karsa Orlong’s. Focussing the first part of *House of Chains * entirely on him was a bold move on Erikson’s part but I think it paid off handsomely.
Finally if you haven’t been following Tor.com’s epic reread of the entire series here’s a link. I particularly like the Q&A sessions with the authors at the end of each book - very cool.
I think 1-3 and 5 are really strong. House of Chains was also great for opening with Karsa’s story as you say, but overall felt more like a consolidation book.
Memories of Ice is probably my favourite - when I put it down I had the thought it was the best fantasy book I’d read in a long time. An epic story that seemed to really hold together with brilliant pacing. Cast of characters is superb with no real weak voices as I recall. I guess you could say in hindsight that Silverfox didn’t really develop into anything afterwards, but that happens in big stories - characters dropping out.
Kruppe is probably my favourite character in some respects, in terms of what he does. Dreaming, sitting by a feeble fire with elder Gods - great imagery. Or when Baruk thinks he has a glimpse of his mind, like a library which speaks to Kruppe’s total control of his knowledge. The way he speaks, however, got fking annoying in the later books when it was used narratively. One of the few cameos that really worked well at the end of the Crippled God I thought.
It’s interesting to me that Erikson is noted for dropping the reader into a fast moving story with GotM, v little set-up.This is a sign of a masterful writer IMO - unusual in fantasy and a technique used by literary heavyweights. Not easy to to this in a credible fashion and he pulls it off brilliantly. Why then, does he have the opposite characteristic of getting badly bogged down in explanatory ramblings that suck the energy out of stories? This is the sort of thing apprentice writers do before they learn to trust the reader and let their stories breathe.
Memories of Iceis a solid choice, I never got tired of the ‘light relief’ characters like Kruppe, Tehol and Bugg, and Corabb.
I guess you can ask Erikson about the exposition issue yourself in the next Q&A session during the Tor reread. They’re up to Chapter 15 of * The Bonehunters* and are doing 2 chapters a week so there’ll be a chance to ask questions in a couple of weeks or so. Go on I dare you to.
Personally I think part of the problem was that Erikson and Esslemont had done so much world building beforehand that he felt he needed to include all of it.
Fener’s appearance also points to the failure to find a convincing role for the mighty Karsa Orlong in the finale, and you could say similar for Icarium.