Just finished GOTM

[Prefx]

I have to say, at first I was expecting something along the lines of Martin.

I'm the fool.

This book was different than all fantasies I've read. At first I thought the number of times Erikson jumps around in his chapters (blocks/sections) was
excessive, but I grew to love the short scenes. I found the writing simpler than Martin's, but concerning the plot, it's a whole different story. I'm guessing the Empire is a play on ancient Rome? Perhaps?


I do have a few questions.
Does this series follow up on the same characters (I'm guessing some may die), or does it jump from one time period to the next?

Do the other books add on to the confusion you get at the beginning of this book? I actually thought this was pretty neat.

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by Prefx

I have to say, at first I was expecting something along the lines of Martin.

I'm the fool.

This book was different than all fantasies I've read. At first I thought the number of times Erikson jumps around in his chapters (blocks/sections) was
excessive, but I grew to love the short scenes. I found the writing simpler than Martin's, but concerning the plot, it's a whole different story. I'm guessing the Empire is a play on ancient Rome? Perhaps?


I do have a few questions.
Does this series follow up on the same characters (I'm guessing some may die), or does it jump from one time period to the next?

Do the other books add on to the confusion you get at the beginning of this book? I actually thought this was pretty neat.

Nice to see you take the plunge.

What I can tell you Prefx is that Malazan is most likely modeled on a number of civilizations as Steven was an anthropologist and archaeologist. You're right though, in short reviews of the series I tend to parallel Malazan with the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire a little, not that an exact parallell can be made here.

As far as GOTM goes YES things do become clearer in latter books and for me this book was the weakest of the series. I've found generally speaking that Erikson's stroytelling abilities improves like a fine wine with each new book. This is clasic EPIC fantasy at it's best IMO and the wordlbuilding and magic systems are far in advance of Martin although I acknowledge he doesn't rely as heavily on magic in his world or at last perhaps makes it more subtle or less overt. The depth of worldbuilding is the second most developed or realised I've personally come across since Tolkien for this Genre and unlike many auhors he doesn't telgraph events or twists before they happen!

To answer your question about the books basically books 1 and 3 return or focus on one set of charaters and specific land mass whilst books 2,4 and 6 focus on another main land/location and character set but all are set wtihin the one Malazan world at basically the same time i.e. the books tend to have events that may occur in parallel but as indicated in different locations hence the diffrent books. Also events in one book will have repercussions in another as you travel through the series.

Book 5 takes place in another location/time BUT book 6 appears to tie into 2,4 and 5.

Hope this gives you a clearer idea of things....

[Dolorous Edd]

^^^

What he said. Save Erikson's worldbuilding is far supperior to tolkiens, The Malazan world beats the crap out of middle earth in terms of complexity, depth and, yes i know it's a bit of a pardaox for a "fantasy" series, Realism. nothing i have ever read has managed to convey with such ease that event's are taking place in a real living, breathing world.

[Dolorous Edd]

Still perfer ASOIAF tho.

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by Dolorous Edd

Still perfer ASOIAF tho.

Well I might just be able to forgive you that lapse just this once.....

Martin is still very good though, no arguments from this quarter on that.

OFF TOPIC: Actually I'd argue that Tolkien's worldbuilding is more developed than Eriskon's perhaps in part because Erikson has spent less time devising and working on his world than Tolkien did at this point in time, although it may only be a matter of time who knows, not that he's gone to the extent of developing full linguistically functional languages yet. I do agree however that for me Erikson does a better job at describing or conveying in detail his world than Tolkien but then I'm comparing LOTR and The Hobbit to a 10 book series in Malazan and NOT all of the additional stuff that was published incl. Lost Tales, Silmarillion and History Of Middle Earth which is pretty phenomenal to say the least and to my knowledge yet to be exceeded in the Genre.

[Brys]

I'd argue that by Midnight Tides, in terms of writing ability Erikson manages to surpass Martin. Gollum's said most of it, but as I've had a chance to read A Feast for Crows and Memories of Ice quite close together - Martin clearly has better dialogue, but Erikson's description is a lot better.

There are a lot more characters that are introduced, but it broadly follows the ones you meet in Gardens of the Moon.

In Erikson v Tolkien on worldbuilding - Erikson's is much, much larger scale. But Tolkien's was more intricately detailed and had greater depth. IMO Erikson's is better - but it isn't deeper. For example, Tolkien created a whole language. Ok, this doesn't really add anything to the novels, or anything that significant to the world - but it's still there. Arda is pretty small scale - but think about Tolkien's intentions - he wanted to create a mythology for England. He didn't want to create an entire world comparable in scale to our own. That's where the crucial difference between Erikson and Tolkien is in terms of worldbuilding. I'd argue there are more complexities in Erikson, but that again is because of the style he's chosen. I don't think it's too ridiculous to say that Erikson's more imaginative than Tolkien, either. Or at least he's been influenced by a much wider range of sources (the Moorcock/Leiber influences really struck me on my re-read of MoI).

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by Brys

In Erikson v Tolkien on worldbuilding - Erikson's is much, much larger scale. But Tolkien's was more intricately detailed and had greater depth. IMO Erikson's is better - but it isn't deeper. For example, Tolkien created a whole language. Ok, this doesn't really add anything to the novels, or anything that significant to the world - but it's still there.

Exactly my contention, you've made that point beautifully. The only thing I wouldn't fully agree with is your premise that Erikson has more imagination than Tolkien. It's probably fairer to point to the fact that he's had the benefit of a greater range of influences perhaps than Tolkien did, which of course isn't Tolkien's fault BUT I think that's essentially what you're suggesting but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mulch]

I've been on a re-read in preparation for my newly acuired copy of the bonehunters. I went from GOTM straight to memories of ice and have to say that it works as a sequel.

[Jason_Taverner]

Well I've just satrted GOTM just started darujhistan I have to say I am very impressed with the 1st part mainly the moon spawn magic battle and the 2nd army always a even trade and the empty smouldering armour strong stuff I am struggling a little with the whole warren thing but I think I've cracked it loving it so far

[Rane Longfox]

Hell, I don't full understand the warrens, and I've read the series a bucket load of times So I wouldn't worry about that

If you enjoy the start of GotM, thats an excellent sign - most people get very confused by the whole thing, and give up...

[Jason_Taverner]

ok so I've just hit chapter 14 and loving it werid thing is u read about wiskeyjack and something are written about him but he isn't the main star but u still really think u like him and you've getting to know him even though most of what u read is what ppl say and think about him

[Jason_Taverner]

slight possible spoiler...

just finished now and wow really enjoyed it can't wait to buy deadhouse gates. I loved the ending but the battle between Anomander Rake and The Galayn Lord was fantastic now one of my all time fav brawls great stuff. The magic in this book is some of the best I've ever read warrens are confusing at first but you get there in the end if you haven't tried this series I would recommend it to anyone. Yeah and Quick Ben who would of thought. Then again there are twist about all the charaters I just liked his the most

[Sathai]

I'm currently reading Gardens of the Moon and am enjoying it. The plot and political intrigue are wonderfully written. The only thing bad about the book is the horrible book cover illustration. A woman wearing armor that exposes her cleavage...

[Rosemary]

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox

Hell, I don't full understand the warrens, and I've read the series a bucket load of times So I wouldn't worry about that

If you enjoy the start of GotM, thats an excellent sign - most people get very confused by the whole thing, and give up...

I got confused and didn't give up! I'm now waiting for Toll The Hounds to hit the bookshelves...

[Rane Longfox]

Originally Posted by Sathai

I'm currently reading Gardens of the Moon and am enjoying it. The plot and political intrigue are wonderfully written. The only thing bad about the book is the horrible book cover illustration. A woman wearing armor that exposes her cleavage...

Ah, yeah, the american covers. We shouted about that so loudly that they got rid of her on the second printing and only had the man on the horse. The UK covers are much better