Manticorkscrew
2007-10-23, 08:04 PM
Has anyone else read any of Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen? Daft question, really, since I've seen at least one person named after a character from the books. But I'm interested in hearing what you think of them. For those of you who don't know, the Malazan Book of the Fallen is a series of doorstop fantasy books, with a cast of hundreds of named characters, ranging over four different continents (so far), and several other dimensions. The author likes to overturn, subvert or deconstruct many common fantasy tropes, and the series has quite a grim, gritty, realistic feel (most of the time. And for a given value of realistic.)
They used to be my favourite fantasy book series ever, but I didn't like the last two books very much. And because I like the series so much, I'm now going to take the opportunity to complain about it. After all, if I didn't love it, I wouldn't care about it enough to want to rip it to pieces.
I really like the world Erikson has created, the lands, his collection of bizarre and interesting characters, and the way the religions and Gods of the setting are presented. When I read Gardens of the Moon, it seemed so original and different from any of my usual fantasy stuff that I knew I wanted more. I bought the first four books in the series and waited eagerly for more to come out.
You know that I'm going to say "but", here, don't you?
So, here are my criticisms. I've been bursting to discuss them with someone. Nobody else I know reads the books:
1. Maybe this isn't really an appropriate criticism of a series where the first three scenes in the first book all dealt with or hinted at three separate incidents of mass murder, but the last book, Reaper's Gale, pushed the grim and grittiness to ridiculous lengths. For me, at least. I could do without all the descriptions of rape and torture, especially if they don't add anything to the plot.
2. Erikson can't write female characters. Yes, he can write one female character. She's an action girl, and she's actually a really cool character. If this was a book with a really slim cast, it wouldn't be noticeable. But in a series where there are thousands of characters it soon becomes painfully obvious that all the women are the same, with a few minor variations.
3. Maybe that's why most of the Ascendants and Gods are men? Not all of them, just 90% of the ones that have made more than cameo appearances in the series so far. I was really peeved when Erikson killed off three of the most prominent female goddesses in Reaper's Gale. They deserved everything they got (none of the divinities in the Malazan books are very nice people, and these were particularly malevolent), but the anticipation for the fight had been building up for ages, and when it came it was SO anticlimactic. Also, I had hoped they would join the Chained God's side, because he needs a quirky miniboss squad. But it was not to be.
4. Over-reliance on certain plot devices. Moranth munitions, in particular. They have always been nasty, nasty things, but their power level seems to have increased incrementally so that now they are capable of one-hit-killing a God. Also: Dei Ex Machina. Such as Beak. 'Nuff said.
5. In the series, there have always been quite a few characters I don't care for (in fact, Erikson seemed to be going out of his way to make me dislike Felisin), and a few chapters that I'd just skip (because they bored me and they had nothing to do with the plot), but the last two books have been particularly bad in this respect. Long, long, long philosophical and expositionary conversations that don't go anywhere, irrelevant wayside tribes and characters popping up out of nowhere to do nothing. There are still some moments of brilliance, but they are few and far between.
6. Everyone is a philosopher. Erikson is keen to tell the reader as much about the social, cultural and historical conditions of the world he has created as possible, and to advance some of his own ideas and theories. This wasn't so jarring in the first few books, where the characters acting as his mouthpiece were alchemists, philosophers and sages who would be expected to act that way and know such things, but it's a lot more jarring if a random soldier in the Bridgeburners suddenly has startling insights into Shake ancestry, etymology and culture. It was the same with Udinaas, although to be fair, he had a reason. And most of the soldiers seem to be zen survivors, obfuscating fools and warrior poets. It's OK to have one or two soldier to whom war has given depressing insights into the human condition, but you wouldn't expect all of them to act this way.
6. One thing that saddens me is Erikson's presentation of homosexuals in his books. There are plenty of lesbian and bisexual women (because that gets all the men hot and sweaty), but the only gay men in the series have, so far, been background characters who have been chopped down by Karsa Orlong's sword. Oh, and there's a gay man who is also a paedophile. It really makes me sick that a writer who loves to avoid cliches has fallen back on one of the oldest, nastiest and most horrible cliches in the book, which is the assumption that gay man=paedophile.
7. Erikson likes certain characters to the point that they become Gary Stus. In order to explain this one, I'm going to have to resort to a comparison. When I was watching the film 300 it seemed to me that the film was perpetually thrusting those images of rugged, muscular, manly, manly men in my face and shouting "Look! This is what a man should be like! Worship them!" In that film, ideals of masculinity are idolized to such an extent that it becomes embarassing. And that's basically how Erikson presents Karsa Orlong. It's obvious that Karsa is Erikson's ideal man. On another board, the issue provoked an argument over whether or not Erikson was "gay for Karsa Orlong". In fact, glorification of masculinity is probably just as or more typical of heterosexual men, but I digress...
Also, certain comic relief characters have gone past their use-by date. In Midnight Tides, Tehol and Bugg were a hilarious duo. In Reaper's Gale I wanted to throttle them both for being so annoying.
And everyone in the books go on about what a wonderful guy Trull is because he cries a few times, and that shows how he's all sensitive and stuff. :smallsigh:
8. Many of the plot lines have had anticlimactic endings, and that would be fine, but more recently they've started to veer towards the disappointing and pointless. Especially pointless deaths. Yeah, in real life, death tends to be sudden, but the more recent deaths of main characters in the Malazan books seem extremely contrived. It's as though Erikson decided that he needed a death, just to show that the situation was serious and tragic.
9. We're getting near the end of the series. Should there be so many new subplots introduced? The Awl were fairly interesting, by Reaper's Gale standards, but they didn't contribute anything to the ongoing plot (except to get a certain woobie killed again), and I can't help feeling that if their subplot had been omitted the space could have been used to make the rest of the book seem less rushed and contrived.
10. More on that subject: the battles and journeys in the earlier books weren't very realistic, but they had verisimilitude. They felt hard-won. At the end of each book there was a bloody climax that left me thinking: 'how on earth is he going to top this?' By comparison, Reaper's Gale was ridiculous. A small group of soldiers bumble around a foreign country making dozens of tactical mistakes and getting surrounded by a vastly superior force, and yet they win because they've got unlimited bombs and a walking plot device? Maybe even that had a moral to it: old-fashioned warfare is pretty useless when you've got bombs and magic, but it still didn't help my suspension of disbelief.
11. Lether. It might as well have a neon sign over it saying: "Capitalism is bad for you!" Although, actually, I thought it was quite an interesting presentation of a culture when it was introduced in Midnight Tides. But I'd have to say that the social commentary isn't very subtle, and it gets worse. And the new Letherii Empire seems jarringly optimistic, considering that a recurring theme in the books is that all Nations, Kingdoms and Empires are bad or go bad, to a lesser or greater extent.
Damn, did I write all that? :smalleek:
Er... as you can probably tell, I'm a big fan of the books, and I heartily recommend that you give the first four a try, at least. It often amazes me how often fans can be so overwhelmingly negative about something they love, and I guess I'm proof of that, at the moment.
They used to be my favourite fantasy book series ever, but I didn't like the last two books very much. And because I like the series so much, I'm now going to take the opportunity to complain about it. After all, if I didn't love it, I wouldn't care about it enough to want to rip it to pieces.
I really like the world Erikson has created, the lands, his collection of bizarre and interesting characters, and the way the religions and Gods of the setting are presented. When I read Gardens of the Moon, it seemed so original and different from any of my usual fantasy stuff that I knew I wanted more. I bought the first four books in the series and waited eagerly for more to come out.
You know that I'm going to say "but", here, don't you?
So, here are my criticisms. I've been bursting to discuss them with someone. Nobody else I know reads the books:
1. Maybe this isn't really an appropriate criticism of a series where the first three scenes in the first book all dealt with or hinted at three separate incidents of mass murder, but the last book, Reaper's Gale, pushed the grim and grittiness to ridiculous lengths. For me, at least. I could do without all the descriptions of rape and torture, especially if they don't add anything to the plot.
2. Erikson can't write female characters. Yes, he can write one female character. She's an action girl, and she's actually a really cool character. If this was a book with a really slim cast, it wouldn't be noticeable. But in a series where there are thousands of characters it soon becomes painfully obvious that all the women are the same, with a few minor variations.
3. Maybe that's why most of the Ascendants and Gods are men? Not all of them, just 90% of the ones that have made more than cameo appearances in the series so far. I was really peeved when Erikson killed off three of the most prominent female goddesses in Reaper's Gale. They deserved everything they got (none of the divinities in the Malazan books are very nice people, and these were particularly malevolent), but the anticipation for the fight had been building up for ages, and when it came it was SO anticlimactic. Also, I had hoped they would join the Chained God's side, because he needs a quirky miniboss squad. But it was not to be.
4. Over-reliance on certain plot devices. Moranth munitions, in particular. They have always been nasty, nasty things, but their power level seems to have increased incrementally so that now they are capable of one-hit-killing a God. Also: Dei Ex Machina. Such as Beak. 'Nuff said.
5. In the series, there have always been quite a few characters I don't care for (in fact, Erikson seemed to be going out of his way to make me dislike Felisin), and a few chapters that I'd just skip (because they bored me and they had nothing to do with the plot), but the last two books have been particularly bad in this respect. Long, long, long philosophical and expositionary conversations that don't go anywhere, irrelevant wayside tribes and characters popping up out of nowhere to do nothing. There are still some moments of brilliance, but they are few and far between.
6. Everyone is a philosopher. Erikson is keen to tell the reader as much about the social, cultural and historical conditions of the world he has created as possible, and to advance some of his own ideas and theories. This wasn't so jarring in the first few books, where the characters acting as his mouthpiece were alchemists, philosophers and sages who would be expected to act that way and know such things, but it's a lot more jarring if a random soldier in the Bridgeburners suddenly has startling insights into Shake ancestry, etymology and culture. It was the same with Udinaas, although to be fair, he had a reason. And most of the soldiers seem to be zen survivors, obfuscating fools and warrior poets. It's OK to have one or two soldier to whom war has given depressing insights into the human condition, but you wouldn't expect all of them to act this way.
6. One thing that saddens me is Erikson's presentation of homosexuals in his books. There are plenty of lesbian and bisexual women (because that gets all the men hot and sweaty), but the only gay men in the series have, so far, been background characters who have been chopped down by Karsa Orlong's sword. Oh, and there's a gay man who is also a paedophile. It really makes me sick that a writer who loves to avoid cliches has fallen back on one of the oldest, nastiest and most horrible cliches in the book, which is the assumption that gay man=paedophile.
7. Erikson likes certain characters to the point that they become Gary Stus. In order to explain this one, I'm going to have to resort to a comparison. When I was watching the film 300 it seemed to me that the film was perpetually thrusting those images of rugged, muscular, manly, manly men in my face and shouting "Look! This is what a man should be like! Worship them!" In that film, ideals of masculinity are idolized to such an extent that it becomes embarassing. And that's basically how Erikson presents Karsa Orlong. It's obvious that Karsa is Erikson's ideal man. On another board, the issue provoked an argument over whether or not Erikson was "gay for Karsa Orlong". In fact, glorification of masculinity is probably just as or more typical of heterosexual men, but I digress...
Also, certain comic relief characters have gone past their use-by date. In Midnight Tides, Tehol and Bugg were a hilarious duo. In Reaper's Gale I wanted to throttle them both for being so annoying.
And everyone in the books go on about what a wonderful guy Trull is because he cries a few times, and that shows how he's all sensitive and stuff. :smallsigh:
8. Many of the plot lines have had anticlimactic endings, and that would be fine, but more recently they've started to veer towards the disappointing and pointless. Especially pointless deaths. Yeah, in real life, death tends to be sudden, but the more recent deaths of main characters in the Malazan books seem extremely contrived. It's as though Erikson decided that he needed a death, just to show that the situation was serious and tragic.
9. We're getting near the end of the series. Should there be so many new subplots introduced? The Awl were fairly interesting, by Reaper's Gale standards, but they didn't contribute anything to the ongoing plot (except to get a certain woobie killed again), and I can't help feeling that if their subplot had been omitted the space could have been used to make the rest of the book seem less rushed and contrived.
10. More on that subject: the battles and journeys in the earlier books weren't very realistic, but they had verisimilitude. They felt hard-won. At the end of each book there was a bloody climax that left me thinking: 'how on earth is he going to top this?' By comparison, Reaper's Gale was ridiculous. A small group of soldiers bumble around a foreign country making dozens of tactical mistakes and getting surrounded by a vastly superior force, and yet they win because they've got unlimited bombs and a walking plot device? Maybe even that had a moral to it: old-fashioned warfare is pretty useless when you've got bombs and magic, but it still didn't help my suspension of disbelief.
11. Lether. It might as well have a neon sign over it saying: "Capitalism is bad for you!" Although, actually, I thought it was quite an interesting presentation of a culture when it was introduced in Midnight Tides. But I'd have to say that the social commentary isn't very subtle, and it gets worse. And the new Letherii Empire seems jarringly optimistic, considering that a recurring theme in the books is that all Nations, Kingdoms and Empires are bad or go bad, to a lesser or greater extent.
Damn, did I write all that? :smalleek:
Er... as you can probably tell, I'm a big fan of the books, and I heartily recommend that you give the first four a try, at least. It often amazes me how often fans can be so overwhelmingly negative about something they love, and I guess I'm proof of that, at the moment.