Malazan books of the fallen

[Karsa Orlong]

Bah, I personally consider Erikson to be better on nearly every level. Bakker's poetic style feels forced and OTT at times, and his work is neither as epic or as emotionally immersive as Erikson's. I don't find his philosophising to be quite so beautiful or insightful either, though it's still certainly my cup of tea. Bakker's one of my favourite fantasy authors and he's great, but I can't agree with you folks.

I wouldn't necessarily call The Thousandfold Thought a letdown, either. The ending is arguably rather anti-climactic, at least for one story arc, but at its peak that book reaches greater heights than anything else I've read by Bakker so far (usually in sections involving C'niaur).

[Rane Longfox]

The Darkness that Comes Before is a very good book, and better than, say, House of Chains, which I consider to be Erikson's weakest.

The other two aren't up the standard of the first though.

[Karsa Orlong]

I thought that book began superbly, the prologue in particular is brilliant, but the section that concentrated on the Emperor dragged on a bit and the book didn't really pick up again until C'naiur and Kellhus became the focal point towards the second half. I think the books were driven by two, maybe three or four very strong characters and often found myself trying to read about other characters quickly in order to return to the stronger ones (and don't get me wrong, these were really strong characters in general). With Erikson I don't get that (though I know others do) because I always feel the desire to read every little piece of this evolving history, perhaps because I'm so enamoured with his world in general, whilst Bakker's never truly sucked me in (this actually surprised me because the prologue hit me very vividly and intrigued me immensely).

As for House of Chains, well, I can see why people find it to be weak but I don't personally. I love Karsa (not to be narcissistic or anything) for a start and consider him one of Erikson's finest creations, whilst I found the build up of events fascinating and the ending to be fittingly (key word) anti-climactic and in retrospect to be the best way for events to conclude. Plus, there were some absolutely beautiful stand-alone passages in that book, a few of which I actually felt inspired to copy down. I do possibly consider the book his second weakest, at least in some respects, but I like it muchly nontheless.

[Thadlerian]

After reading the aforementioned three books, I have found Erikson's characters rather hard to relate to emotionally. It's hard to tell the difference, even between main characters. Whenever they speak, they growl. Or grunt. That's about as far under the skin as we get.

Bakkers characters seem to stand out in stark contrast. They're higly emotional beings. They're allowed to cry, and they seem to do so a lot. Achamian, Xinemus, Proyas, Esmenet, they're all sore and vulnerable people, in spite of their strong capabilities. And when they're happy, it feels really real, even when it's just a product of Kellhus' cynical manipulation. Sometimes you even like Kellhus a little, or at least wish there was something more human behind his facades.

I think that's my major point in preferring Bakker over Erikson. As for the ones Karsa Orlong points out, perhaps we need a new thread in the main book forum?

"Steven Erikson vs. R. Scott Bakker: The Ultimate Showdown"

[Rane Longfox]

Maybe thats the main problem with Bakker. His characters are all a bit too similar...

[nixie]

I enjoyed the Prince of Nothing series.Quickly become one of my favourites but it comes a poor second to Erikson.

[Green]

I think Bakker's stuff is more real than Erikson's. If you removed the Gnosis and all the rest, then it could just be some historical fantasy. Bakker's magic seems more real than Erikson's, though that does not necessarily make it more interesting - it is, imo, more beautiful. When you see it, you feel like you've earned it. I really love the imagery of pure white light coming out of a man's eyes and mouth as he performs the magic - a real sense that he is speaking the words of creation.

You spend a lot of time with Bakker's main characters (more than with most of Erikson's, though not all) and as a result you get to know them much better. Erikson hides his characters' pasts - this is not a flaw, really, because it adds to the reveal later on - but with Bakker you really get to know them from the outset.

I consider the two very different, and both are great. Certainly the two best fantasy series I have read (I'm not starting Martin until he's finished). I can't wait for the Aspect Emperor

[Thadlerian]

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox

Maybe thats the main problem with Bakker. His characters are all a bit too similar...

That might be so. At least when you move away from the main characters; the surrounding Great Names tend to become rather static. But characters like Kellhus, Cnaïur, Esmenet, Achamian and Serwë seem so fleshed out; they're allowed to show strong emotions (even Kellhus, every now and then, near the end of W-P).

To me, this is more of an issue with Erikson. I have an hard time telling his characters apart. They're so occupied with doing, they don't have time for being. They're told apart by what they do, but their actions are often just reactions to what is being imposed upon them from the outside. It's hard to tell whether they are making real choices. When you get under the skin of one of them, it's hard to tell who it is. They talk much the same way: They always growl. Alternately grunt. Perhaps this is how years of war affects people, but I feel that Erikson has grown a little too fond of this character type, this seen-it-all fighter growling dry remarks, sitting by the campfire.

I think Green put very well what it is about Bakker that more than everything attracts me: The beauty. It sure is a gritty series, but every now and then you glimpse beauty, like in the Achamian-Esmenet relationship, or his open, honest friendship with Xinemus, or the spots of clarity and reason underneath Cnaïur's inhuman madness. Or, as Green mentions, the Gnosis, the way it works, blending metaphor and metaphysics.

Erikson is cool. Damn cool. But there's never simple beauty. There can be grand scenes, like the aforementioned T'lan Imass scene, that touch you. But Bakker has a certain skill for allowing for little moments of simple, innocent beauty, like Achamian and Esmenet walking around the encampments, holding hands like teenagers. Simple beauty doesn't need to be antithetic to grittiness, something China Miéville has already demonstrated (at least in The Scar).

[Karsa Orlong]

Originally Posted by Thadlerian

After reading the aforementioned three books, I have found Erikson's characters rather hard to relate to emotionally. It's hard to tell the difference, even between main characters. Whenever they speak, they growl. Or grunt. That's about as far under the skin as we get.

Hmmm, that's a rather almighty generalisation, methinks. I have to question the idea that it's hard to tell the difference between most of Erikson's characters; if you can't distinguish Kruppe from Quick Ben from Karsa from Icarium from Tool from Pearl from Apsalar from Anomander Rake from Coltaine from etcetcetc you must have the attention span of a gnat. There are certainly noticeable similarities between certain sets of characters from similar backgrounds, for example a lot of the soldiers have that similar gritty, cynical feel to their personalities, but I imagine those would evolve naturally in that environment. Same goes for the certain similarities between, say, Rake and Brood, or Kalam and Quick Ben, who've known one another for decades or even centuries and longer - this to me holds has no logical inconsistency with Erikson's world.

I'll grant you that there are a *few* characters who whilst being relevant to the plot don't stand out as being that interesting or different, but even that isn't necessarily a flaw in my eyes - what kind of world doesn't have people like that? I think the fact that plotlines are usually focused on an interesting and enclosed set of events, which are generally made interesting by the characters that these events revolve around, has led us to depend on every single character being incredibly different and unique - Erikson's plotline is virtually his whole world, however, so there are always going to be a few people encompassed who aren't perhaps special in any obvious manner. Sometimes people with samey personalities can do amazing things, or actions relevant to amazing events, and when you're focusing on such a massive array of characters, there are likely to be a few in there who fit that description. Just a thought, and not really a fully formed one, so don't hold me to it.

A further aspect of Erikson's work is that because his plot is so sprawling and so much of his world is encompassed, any single one of his characters is perhaps less significant than in the majority of other fiction simply because he or she is just painting their own layer onto this vast canvas of a history rather than on a simple enclosed story - however important a part they play, they're never going to be that significant in the grand scheme of things. This is a massively appealing and in fact a very human idea to me, but I've sadly found it puts plenty of people off.

Still, I find it very easy to relate to quite a few of Erikson's characters, and those books frequently have me in tears, whilst Bakker only occasionally moved me to that extent - I guess we just have different personalities. Bakker's work is probably more obviously passionate than Erikson's, but in an OTT tone which often serves as an obstacle to me - it just doesn't feel natural somehow, whereas Erikson's tone is full of what's best described as "understated pathos" despite his flowery style and that resonates with me far more easily. Whilst Erikson's work maybe isn't necessarily so *directly* emotionally involving I find that emotional involvement to generally be more maturely and subtly rendered, such as in a simple piece of wonderful humour placed perfectly in contrast to brutality unfolding all around, or in implicit emotions that aren't in any way made blatant by the writer, etcetc. It all feels more *human* to me.

As for the magic, well, I'm not all that interested in magical systems to be perfectly honest, but I agree that Bakker does it well. Erikson keeps his magic ambiguously defined, it's more of a presence and at times almost a symbol than it is any physically defined thing, and there's something beautiful in that as well as far as I'm concerned. Again, each to their own I suppose.

[Karsa Orlong]

^Note that you hadn't posted your last post when I posted this one.

I'll see if your latest post requires an extra reply.

[Karsa Orlong]

Originally Posted by Thadlerian

They're so occupied with doing, they don't have time for being. They're told apart by what they do, but their actions are often just reactions to what is being imposed upon them from the outside. t's hard to tell whether they are making real choices. When you get under the skin of one of them, it's hard to tell who it is.

Interestingly, I've talked about their personalities often unfolding as actions before, but in praise rather than criticism. I don't want to turn this into a philosophical argument, but I question whether anybody differs from this - to me this just makes the books more human. I may well not be a believer in the existence of "real choices" in the sense you mean - again, personality differences between us may be key here.

They talk much the same way: They always growl. Alternately grunt. Perhaps this is how years of war affects people, but I feel that Erikson has grown a little too fond of this character type, this seen-it-all fighter growling dry remarks, sitting by the campfire.

I agree that maybe there's a *bit* too much grunting and growling going on in Erikson, although as you say I think the world and its atmosphere maybe logically lead to that. I reckon Bakker and nearly all other authors overuse some things too though, I find some of the flowery passages of philosophical contemplation to be virtually indistinguishable from character to character and not very naturally integrated, for example, and there's always that bloody emphasis everywhere regardless of character (or even from the narrator).

I think Green put very well what it is about Bakker that more than everything attracts me: The beauty. It sure is a gritty series, but every now and then you glimpse beauty, like in the Achamian-Esmenet relationship, or his open, honest friendship with Xinemus, or the spots of clarity and reason underneath Cnaïur's inhuman madness. Or, as Green mentions, the Gnosis, the way it works, blending metaphor and metaphysics. Erikson is cool. Damn cool. But there's never simple beauty.

Ahh. I find some of Bakker's work beautiful if not generally to the point of being in love with it, I'm certainly not trying to take that away from him - like I've said he's one of my favourite authors. But actually there are many, many simply beautiful scenes in Erikson's work, at least for me. What you seem to be describing as wonderful in Bakker is honestly exactly what I would describe my many favourite parts of Erikson as. I have several of these copied down, though mostly from House of Chains and onwards as that's where I started doing it, so I won't spoil them for you. There's a conversation between Trull and Onrack which is the definition of simple beauty, absolutely heart-breakingly so, I still remember it word for word. There are several involving Karsa and Samar Dev, there's one I recall between Trull and a demon even, which just made me gaze at the page and re-read the texts with all sorts of complex emotions stirring inside me. These are just a few which spring to mind, there were many more. I find Icarium's relationship and situation with Mappo to be a thing of almost unbearable beauty, I find many very simple and beautiful themes like motherly love or burdens of duty to be explored in incredibly emotional ways by Erikson, I find his of use of humour to occasionally be deeply beautiful in a way I would call simple. Perhaps they're more prevalent in the later books and that's why you don't seem to feel the same, I can't say I've noticed that to be honest, but I know that I loved books two and three arguably as much as later books so I don't know... Still, I honestly feel Erikson has simple, quiet beauty in abundance, as well as the rousing, epic scenes of heroism and the like which you speak of.

[Green]

This isn't much of a criticism or comparison with Bakker, I just thought I'd bring this up.

Something I mentioned in a review of TBH was that Erikson is probably the master of multiple POVs, but he has so many main characters in his latest book that he doesn't have the time or the space to give them anything real to do. We end up with endlessly-jumping POVs within chapters, particularly at Y'Ghatan. Fortunately, as you say, his plot is virtually the whole deal, so it isn't disaster time. I do feel that he may be letting things unravel somewhat (some of his characters have become stale or evolved too far from where they started), and I hope it doesn't continue into Reaper's Gale.

[Karsa Orlong]

Originally Posted by Green

Something I mentioned in a review of TBH was that Erikson is probably the master of multiple POVs, but he has so many main characters in his latest book that he doesn't have the time or the space to give them anything real to do. We end up with endlessly-jumping POVs within chapters, particularly at Y'Ghatan.

I think that, because I read that one in only a couple of sittings, I was able to follow it relatively easily and get my head around all the characters and it all swept me along quite nicely, but I can imagine if I was reading it over a longer period the ridiculous amount of characters at Y'Ghatan in particular would irritate and confuse me somewhat. Maybe it's aimed at a certain type of reader, in that respect, or maybe he can just get a bit over-ambitious on occasion - either way it didn't detract significantly from my personal experience of the book.

I disagreed with certain aspects of your review (I've just had a look again) regarding the second part of your post about characters stagnating or changing unrealistically. For example I found the Karsa sections enjoyable as ever and at times very beautiful - your criticism is actually part of his charm for me, the sense of him converging upon an inevitable destination - I'll stop talking now though because I'm trying to avoid spoilers with these posts.

[Green]

I read the Y'Ghatan section in one sitting, and thought it was badly done.

As to the stagnating of characters - well, during HoC, Karsa Orlong went from ignorant, raping, arrogant barbarian to something quite remarkable. During TBH, he did nothing. He just trundled along. He was given so little to do that we barely even saw him from his own POV. We saw him from that woman's, can't remember her name now, and she offered little other than to go, "Wow, I thought he was a mindless savage. Perhaps not..." which is just same old, same old with Karsa Orlong. The woman herself was more interesting. Which isn't saying much. There was little, if any, growth of Orlong (that sounds filthy). And it was a waste of a great character.

And those who have evolved too much... well, I could name a few, but you read my review.

[Karsa Orlong]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, though again, after his initial quite remarkable changes I don't think he would, realistically speaking, continue to change at that sort of rate. So I think the emphasis necessarily had to move on from being on the evolution of Karsa's character to being on his gradual convergence upon his destination (not just his dream of leading a Teblor army but the more immediate destination built up for by The Bonehunters) - it seems like his story arc is building up to a bang. Whether he could've done more with the build up... well, as I said before I found many of the sections with him and Samar Dev (the woman you're talking about) to be extremely beautiful even if their fundamental relationship was somewhat typical, so I'm happy with how he wrote it.

What you say about Cotillion is true, though I'm not sure we've seen the last of the side he showed in GotM, and I think there was always a somewhat pantomimish aspect to that duo from the outset, though perhaps from Shadowthrone moreso.

In fairness, those are the only two characters you criticise in your review aren't they?