Malazan Book of the Fallen (any good?)

[Tormsskull]

So, I'm playing WoW a couple of weeks ago, and in my guild this conversation breaks out about great fantasy series. I mention Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, the Shannara Series, to which this guy who says he read all of the above says Malazan Book of the Fallen. He says it is better than all of the above (and several others mentioned that escape me at the moment).

Is this book series any good? How does it compare to other fantasy series? I tried looking up information about it and it didn't seem to have a particularly high rating on any top 100 fantasy lists.

Is it worth a read?

[Dhavaer]

It's good. Not great, there's a tendancy to throw you straight into the world without a lot of explaination, but good. From what I've heard it's most similar to A Song of Ice and Fire, but I've never read that, so I can't give a real comparison.

[Da'Shain]

It's interesting. I wouldn't call it better than WoT or SoIaF (I WOULD call it better than Shannara, but that's me), but after reading all the books available in those two and many other series besides, it's a welcome blend of stupidly powerful magic and stories without clear good guys and bad guys. Granted, I'm only two books in, but so far I'm enjoying myself. The plots of humans and gods alike make for interesting reading, and I'm having fun trying to figure out exactly how the heck magic works in this setting (besides the obvious "A warren did it").

Be warned, though ... this is another one where anyone can die. Only really bothered me in the second book, when my favorite character so far gave up the ghost, but it nowhere near ruined the book for me.

I'd suggest Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, though, if you're looking for a good multi-book fantasy tale. Still my favorite, although not by much.

[freerangetroll]

Probably my favorite fantasy series to date. Erickson doesn't quite have the knack of character building that George Martin has, but his world building is second to none. I'm even including Tolkien in that statement.

The series is currently on book eight of ten, with four companion novels written by another author (the two of those that I have read are almost as good as the central series), and Erickson writes very quickly. He is averaging about a book a year at this point.

It has a darker grittier feel then most contemporary fantasy, and yes characters do get killed off. Some people are put off by the host of characters involved. The series doesn't really have a main character, you will over the course of the series read from the POV of at least 30 different characters. Some are more central then others, but all are important. Erickson is amazing at weaving multiple storylines throughout his books and finishing a set before throwing you into another tangle of plot.

As another poster said, the series does throw you in running and expect to you to keep up. As long as you have some patience however you shouldn't have an issue with that though. Everything is explained in time, if not all at once.

The characters run the gamut from lowly soldiers to Soletaken Dragons and Ascendant beings. Yes some of the characters that exist in the writing are absurdly powerful, but by the same token they feel very down to earth. A sword or "cusser" (a grenade style weapon) can take out a dragon or ascendant if used properly.

Magic is utilized via Warrens. Warrens are holes into a realm that allow wizards to draw power aspected to that realm. Denul for healing, Tellan for animals... etc. They can also be used to hasten travel, kind of like The Ways in the WoT series.

I highly recommend the series to anyone who loves some serious fantasy.

[Thunder Hammer]

Yep, first book is absolutely amazing. The 2nd... was ok. 3rd, alright... There is a huge style difference between the 1st and the later ones, the time difference in the writing of the 1st and 2nd was about 8 years.

While we're talking relatively unknown series, look "The Darkness that comes Before"

It's definitely a crazy out there original epic fantasy series.

[Dhavaer]

While we're talking relatively unknown series, look "The Darkness that comes Before"

It's definitely a crazy out there original epic fantasy series.

To clarify this: The Darkness That Comes Before is the first book of The Prince Of Nothing, a trilogy that covers the equivalent of the First Crusade in a dark fantasy world. It's the first part of a series called Second Apocalypse, the next part is a duology called The Aspect-Emperor, the first book of which is coming out next year.

[WhiteHarness]

I read the first book. A Canadian friend of mine raved about it, and got the first book for me. Given his enthusiasm for it, I expected to love it. I wanted to like it, I really did. I tried to like it. I understand that the author is a fan of GURPS, which is my favorite gaming system. I really, really did want to like it.

But to no avail. My disappointment was deep and bitter.

I have to disagree with whoever said the author was a good worldbuilder. Erickson probably thinks he's being clever by tossing the reader into the middle of the action with no explanation whatsoever. I hate not understanding what's going on. The book was interminably dull. Even his battle and fight scenes were boring. The characters were boring and I couldn't make myself care about them. I can only take so many characters with silly one-word/one syllable names. By the end of the book, none of my questions had been answered.

I don't understand why people think this was a good book. It was dreadfully awful, and I wish I hadn't read it all the way through. My time would have been better spent doing something else.

[freerangetroll]

I read the first book. A Canadian friend of mine raved about it, and got the first book for me. Given his enthusiasm for it, I expected to love it. I wanted to like it, I really did. I tried to like it. I understand that the author is a fan of GURPS, which is my favorite gaming system. I really, really did want to like it.

People have different tastes.



I have to disagree with whoever said the author was a good worldbuilder. Erickson probably thinks he's being clever by tossing the reader into the middle of the action with no explanation whatsoever. I hate not understanding what's going on.

I'm the one who said he built great worlds. An entire race of people that swore themselves to eternal undeath and suffering to destroy the tyrants of their day. Shape shifting ascendants (Soletaken and Di'vers), gods that actually walk and talk with your everyday man, a unique magic system, varied and well done cultures. I mean the Segulah by themselves would have made a great setting, and they are barely touched upon.

I also didn't have a problem understanding anything. The characters themselves gave you the info as you pieced together conversations or narrative thoughts. You didn't get three paragraphs describing every important figure our plot point like your vanilla fantasy does today. It actually took some mental input from the reader to connect everything. I however enjoyed that.


The book was interminably dull. Even his battle and fight scenes were boring. The characters were boring and I couldn't make myself care about them. I can only take so many characters with silly one-syllable names/nicknames. By the end of the book, none of my questions had been answered.

You only read the first book, so this will mean nothing to you. But anyone that can read the ending of Coltaines March in Deadhouse Gates without being moved by it emotionally, or Itkovians moment in Memories of Ice just doesn't know what great writing is in my opinion.

[Satyr]

I tried to read the first book three timesand broke up with it after one third of it. Too chaotic writing style and I thought that the world construction was way over the top. I am no friend of any form of exageration, so the main apppeal of the book was lost to me.

It's aquestion of taste, not quality, but I have certainly read fantasy novels which were much more captivating and more accessible without being qaulitatively below average.

[Philistine]

I've read the first two books in the series, and may eventually read more. It's not on my list of Recommended Reading, though.

Erikson seems to go out of his way to be inaccessible, not to say incoherent. "Throwing readers into the middle of the action" is one thing; "Throwing readers into the middle of the action and waiting another 500 pages before explaining what just happened" is something else again*. Erikson does not give the reader enough information to decipher what's going on as he's writing it - though if you like the book enough to re-read it, things make much more sense the second time around. And this is more than just a simple lack of explanations. Especially in the first book, pivotal events sometimes take place off-screen, and Erikson withholds key information from the readers - information that clearly is known to the viewpoint characters**. The lack of continuity in time, place, and character doesn't help matters either, especially early on when you're trying to figure out who the characters are and how they relate to each other.


* This can be done well - see Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber for example. The difference is that the Amber books focus on a single viewpoint character and are told from a first-person perspective, so that it makes sense that we the readers learn things only when the narrator does. It doesn't work as well when the perspective is third-person omniscient with multiple viewpoint characters.

** This is called cheating when it's done by mystery writers, and is usually considered bad form in that genre. I'm not that thrilled with it in F/SF either, epecially when it takes the form of "The reason the character is doing this now... uhhh... Remember that big wizardly battle about, oh, twelve or so chapters ago? The character, who was our viewpoint for that scene as well, noticed at the time that she was taking fire from an unexpected direction. Now she's trying to get back at the responsible party. Oh, did I forget to mention that? Oops."

[freerangetroll]

Hrm, I guess I must have read a completely different book. Because I had absolutely no issues following the storyline, character arcs, or monumental changes in the setting.

Sure, he doesn't spend a chapter explaining the differences between a D'ivers and a Soletaken, but contextual reading and putting together what is said by the characters over the length of the series pretty much cleared it up for me.

[Wraithy]

I tried reading it, but honestly couldn't get into it (which was annoying as I'd already bought the second book as part of a special offer).
It might have been because I was really busy at the time I tried to read it, but I just felt that the author had skipped over the interesting bits to drag out long and boring scenes.

In the author's foreword he mentions his distaste for infodumps, and yes, they are cheap, and not using them can make a book more realistic, an absence of infodumps can also make you want to read on just to gain clarity on what you've already read.
But by 1/5 of the way through book 1 (yes, I'm ashamed to say that this was all I could drag myself through) I was already tired, I wanted to know more about the setting, but the book so far gave me the impression that I wouldn't ever get that information, and even if I did, that I would have to read through hundreds of boring and uninteresting scenes to get it.

But the author's foreword also mentions how people will either love his books or hate them, and there are clearly enough of his fans to prove this.
My advice is this: try to borrow the first book from a friend or the library, that way you aren't landed with two books you'll never want to read.

[Philistine]

Hrm, I guess I must have read a completely different book. Because I had absolutely no issues following the storyline, character arcs, or monumental changes in the setting.

Sure, he doesn't spend a chapter explaining the differences between a D'ivers and a Soletaken, but contextual reading and putting together what is said by the characters over the length of the series pretty much cleared it up for me.
Emphasis added, because that's exactly what I was getting at.

Yes, eventually Erikson gets around to explaining things. Like I said - if you care enough to re-read it, things will make more sense on the second go-round. First time through, though, they frequently don't. And when the explanations do finally appear, long after the story has moved on, my own reaction is less a triumphant "Aha! That's what he was on about!" and more an annoyed "He couldn't have mentioned this a few hundred pages ago, back when it mattered?"

[toasty]

Erikson is not for everyone. When I read the first book it was confusing and weird, but I somehow managed to enjoy it (also, my friend could not do anything BUT sing the series praises). It makes you think and the sheer number of characters (many of which are killed off or written out of the series by the end of one or two books) means at the beginning of every book you will have to figure out who these people are. Eventually it becomes apparent why they are important but not right away.

Also, yes, throwing the reader right into the middle of the action with no explanation of what or why can confuse the hell out of them, but in the long run (by this I really mean 2 or 3 books into the series) it makes the story better because it allows for more depth to the series IMO, more mysteries that few people (except perhaps teh author and a very small cast of characters) fully understand.

Personally, after reading 7 of the books and loving them all I think the series is worth a try. Erikson is the best fantasy author I've come along, though I have not yet read George RR Martin (and I HATED Memory Sorrow Thorn, the stupid series so blanatly copied LotR it wasn't even funny, sorry) and I probably should at some point try to read the Wheel of Time, but the people who have read these series have told me that Erikson did it better. :)

[freerangetroll]

Emphasis added, because that's exactly what I was getting at.

Yes, eventually Erikson gets around to explaining things. Like I said - if you care enough to re-read it, things will make more sense on the second go-round. First time through, though, they frequently don't. And when the explanations do finally appear, long after the story has moved on, my own reaction is less a triumphant "Aha! That's what he was on about!" and more an annoyed "He couldn't have mentioned this a few hundred pages ago, back when it mattered?"


Just different takes on it I guess. I actually like not knowing what the specific big boom on the horizon or the nature of that scaly monster was until it is explained or expanded upon later. It seems natural to me that since the perspective character of the moment doesn't know what it is, then I shouldn't either.

I also like those moments of "Wow!" where a whole skein of plots come together, or events, and you see the culmination. Like a flower unfolding as he writes.

[Philistine]

Just different takes on it I guess. I actually like not knowing what the specific big boom on the horizon or the nature of that scaly monster was until it is explained or expanded upon later. It seems natural to me that since the perspective character of the moment doesn't know what it is, then I shouldn't either.

I also like those moments of "Wow!" where a whole skein of plots come together, or events, and you see the culmination. Like a flower unfolding as he writes.

Bolding mine, again. :smallamused:

As I said in my first post to this thread, I don't mind not having relevant information when the viewpoint character doesn't have it either. I even stated this explicitly in recommending Zelazny's Amber Chronicles. Or, to put it in a Malazan context, I don't mind the mystery surrounding the former identities of Shadowthrone and Cotillion, because that's something the viewpoint characters are clearly working out as they go. That's not cheating, that's storytelling. When the viewpoint characters clearly do know what's going on, but the author simply can't be bothered to explain, that's different.

The good news is, I didn't notice nearly as much of this in the second book. This gives me hope for subsequent volumes. Maybe Erikson just grew out of it, or perhaps he had a better editor the second time around.

[Lost Demiurge]

The Malazan series is an acquired taste. If you stick with it there's some good stuff in there, almost unique in today's fantasy genre, really. But there's a hell of a lot of stuff that just doesn't click, too.

Check out the first book. It's probably the worst of them, but if you can get through it and you find that you like it, then the rest will be good reading.

And once you get to Karsa Orlong's part of the saga, if you're like me then you'll enjoy the awesome. :D

If you want something similar that's an easier read, then I can recommend the "Black Company" series by Glen Cook. They were actually an inspiration for Eriksson, while he was writing this...

[toasty]

If you want something similar that's an easier read, then I can recommend the "Black Company" series by Glen Cook. They were actually an inspiration for Eriksson, while he was writing this...

If you want to read the Black Company, just read the first book. I read the trilogy (nothing else) and the 2nd book was... crap... the 3rd was a good conclusion, but I only read it because I wanted a conclusion. The 1st books was amazing.

And yes, the soldiers of Erikson's stuff are exactatly like the men (and women?) of the Black Company. Gotta love that.

[Da'Shain]

(and I HATED Memory Sorrow Thorn, the stupid series so blanatly copied LotR it wasn't even funny, sorry)Er ... how? Aside from having a magical big bad guy, an elf-like species and a dwarf-like species, and a big adventure?

I'm really confused as to why you think that, because I've never heard someone even compare it to Tokien, let alone complain that it ripped him off.

[Satyr]

(and I HATED Memory Sorrow Thorn, the stupid series so blanatly copied LotR it wasn't even funny, sorry)

I had my problems with that particular books as well, but it does not have too much in common with the Lordof the Rings. There are a few similiarities, yes, but they are not nearly as blatant as the open use of pseudo-
christinanity.

I haven't read enough of the Malazan books to really come to a judgement about the overall quality, but I did not really had the impression that the books were worthwhile enough to dig through all that cludder in the first book. It is obvious that additional information becomes accessible later on, but in the beginning, its just too much chaos and too few useful information to create an access to the narrative.

[Kiero]

I think they're brilliant, better than any of the other fantasy I've read, though the first book is defintely poorer in quality than the rest of the series. Erikson assumes a certain level of intelligence in the reader, and doesn't try to bore us with the fantasy-standard info-dump, where they kill the pacing to bore you with how wonderful their world is. Instead you're expected to put the details together yourself, only getting snippets of setting as you go.

Which some people hate. And others, like me, really like. I also love that there's no elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs or anything else. The world feels old, really old, and there's some nicely developed characters too. No Robert Jordan (or David Eddings...)-esque national stereotypes.

It manages by turns to be funny, touching, enraging, exciting and occasionally surprising. That's good writing and good pacing.

And for all that people compare it to Cook's Black Company - I think it's a lot better. I read the first one of those and didn't want to read any more. What kind of author glosses over the action? I know it's a contrivance that's supposed to be about Croaker-as-narrator, but that didn't make it any more lame.

Esslemont's books in the same world are quite good, too. I liked Night of Knives a great deal.

[GoryCat]

I think they're brilliant, better than any of the other fantasy I've read, though the first book is defintely poorer in quality than the rest of the series. Erikson assumes a certain level of intelligence in the reader, and doesn't try to bore us with the fantasy-standard info-dump, where they kill the pacing to bore you with how wonderful their world is. Instead you're expected to put the details together yourself, only getting snippets of setting as you go.

Which some people hate.

Lots of people raved about Gardens of the Moon to me and I read it a few years ago; I think I am not one of the people who hated the lack of leisurely world-building, nor even lack of details; I enjoyed having the warrens and their users revealed gradually in what was obviously a series-long effort; I thought his characters were incredibly detailed and absorbing; the evident breadth and depth of history was amazing. What got me was the fact that for all that brilliance of construction, the promise of even a temporary, intermediate conclusion was murdered and trod upon with that completely empty, deus-ex-machina ending that neither explained anything nor made me want anything explained. It was as though all the carefully woven tapestry was nothing but an ad-hoc yarn spun extemporaneously with ever more fanciful flights of fancy that was cut suddenly with a ridiculous device that bordered on the "rocks fall everyone dies" variety of plot advancement. It was a slap in the face, a Yugo behind the door, an insult to days' wasted effort not to be rewarded by anything more than a twist to close off the first sausage in the big chain that he must have thought his series would be. So much buildup, so little reward. Bah.

But you say it makes more sense on a reread and the sequels are better? Why not, I like a challenge.

[Kiero]

But you say it makes more sense on a reread and the sequels are better? Why not, I like a challenge.

The entire series rewards re-reading, there's all kinds of stuff you'll miss the first time around, that make more sense the second and subsequent. Plus the rest of the series is of a much higher standard than the first book. There's ten years between, and no doubt a lot of work on Erikson's writing craft in the intervening time.

[toasty]

Er ... how? Aside from having a magical big bad guy, an elf-like species and a dwarf-like species, and a big adventure?

I'm really confused as to why you think that, because I've never heard someone even compare it to Tokien, let alone complain that it ripped him off.

One part I remember was when when Frodo (or whatever his real name was) got saved by the magical elven river... erm... bridge because it didn't want the evil guys crossing it. I don't know, but every time the story went somewhere I kinda went... "isn't that like this part of X story?".

That and the fact that it took half the book to actually go anywhere and I had no real idea why it took that long. Heck, LotR had some action by the 3rd chapter.

And yes, the pseudo christianity did really bother me... surely people can follow another less known religion or something?

[Philistine]

One part I remember was when when Frodo (or whatever his real name was) got saved by the magical elven river... erm... bridge because it didn't want the evil guys crossing it. I don't know, but every time the story went somewhere I kinda went... "isn't that like this part of X story?".

That and the fact that it took half the book to actually go anywhere and I had no real idea why it took that long. Heck, LotR had some action by the 3rd chapter.

And yes, the pseudo christianity did really bother me... surely people can follow another less known religion or something?

So... people are fine with settings which closely resembles feudal Europe, but not if the primary religions in those settings resembles the religion that - for good or ill - historically dominated feudal Europe?

Huh.

[GoryCat]

So... people are fine with settings which closely resembles feudal Europe, but not if the primary religions in those settings resembles the religion that - for good or ill - historically dominated feudal Europe?

Huh.

"Resembles feudal Europe" is almost always a literal fantasy. Whatever is depicted in these novels owes its form and function to romanticized historical revision, and is no more than a convenient memetic backdrop for a certain storytelling tradition.

No one should think they are getting the real deal on feudal Europe from epic fantasy any more than they should think they are getting it on Christianity from Tad Williams. Having also been irked (initially) by the shameless myth-borrowing he engages in, I can also say that the reason this was so was that it disrupted my "suspension of disbelief"; I always did a double-take when a recognizable fact crept in undisguised and I had to pause and wonder whether the author was trying to actually connect Christianity to his story, or was using it as a kind of color.

This is the sort of reason, I think, that most fantasy does use the romanticized historical revision. It connects with the reader by hitting a certain programmed emotional chord and draws them in by in some way relating to their real-world experience, but doesn't actually get in the way of the escapism.

[toasty]

So... people are fine with settings which closely resembles feudal Europe, but not if the primary religions in those settings resembles the religion that - for good or ill - historically dominated feudal Europe?

Huh.

Its like starwars with the force, it bothered me that they had to be so obviously buddhist in their philosphy.

Dragonlance, a pulp fiction series, did have some of the whole "balance" stuff but they had their own dieties and the like, and yes, you can only have so many gods and stuff, the gods were more unique. The same with malazan. Malazan has a unique pantheon that doesn't really get linked any specific pantheon or theology that exists in our (real) world. Yes, you can see similiarities in cultures and stuff (Seven Cities being Arabian, etc) and their are shamans and spirits and stuff like that (plus hood does kinda remind me of Hades and the like) BUT mostly, its rather unique. A shadow god? A boar god of war? I've never heard of these before. They probably do exist somewhere, but the point is that Erikson brings up stuff that is either original or obsure enough so that most people don't notice it. THAT is what I like about Erikson's work, and why I don't like some other fantasy stuff out there.