I Have One Specific Question About Erikson's Maalazan Series - Thank You.

[The Fisher King]

I hear alot of questions about how it can be confusing early on...if it becomes clearer later...if you stick with it will it be worth it...etc etc.

 

My question has to do with none of those things. Those are not that important to me. I am trying to resolve to try these books once more.

 

The thing in a series that is the most, by far, important thing to me is CHARACTERIZATION and physical descriptions (at least at first)

 

The reason I have tried several times to get into Gardens of the Moon and failed is not because its too confusing, too wide-scaled etc...but because it seems Erikson has no skill at (and makes no effort at) characterization...Paran and Tattersail seem to be the lone exceptions to this where Erikson makes at least a very weak attempt at characterization and Paran still seems paper-thin and Tattersail just...really really bugs me in ways that Im not even really sure about.

 

So, my specific question is:

 

How are his characters drawn in this series - where do you compare Erikson's skill at developing, writing and describing characters on a more personal level as compared to like RJ or GRRM???

 

My two favortie series are WOT and ASOIAF so would I enjoy MBOTF?

 

Before you answer, please let me tell you WHY those are my 2 favorites:

 

The 2 author's skill at EARLY on just NAILING the characters early on and then developing them over interpersonal arcs through the series.

 

I can see Jamie Lannisters White Cloak, his Beaten Gold Hair..I can predict how Mat Cauthon will react in almost any situation...I can see Rand's Grey Eyes or Nynaeve's Braid...I got from the FIRST PAGE that Robert Baraethon is basically an overgrown frat boy...even in, say, The Belgariad, a much younger-oriented series, we understand Silk, his love of money, his zeal for competition and his deep self-loathing.

 

I understand in the first two pages of A Game of Thrones who Ned Stark is...how his honor and morals define him...and even then I could see that these fine qualities may not always work to his advantage.

 

In WOT I see Perrin's Gold Eyes, his dark curls, his broad shoulders...I get within one chapter how he worries about others...I instantly understand how he recognizes that there is a difference between careful and stupid.

 

So, again, finally, I don't read fantasy series for epic scope, cool wars or magic, but rather for this level of character-writing.

 

Does Erikson excel at this at that level early in this series...does it improve later...do we get to KNOW his characters in the way of the examples I gave above...Based on my tastes for excessive characterization and super fleshed-out characters, is Malaazan for me?

 

Thanks for honest answers.

 

 

Fish

 

 

[Werthead]

How are his characters drawn in this series - where do you compare Erikson's skill at developing, writing and describing characters on a more personal level as compared to like RJ or GRRM???

 

Not fantastic. There are several really good characters in the series, like Felisin and to a lesser extent Paran and Crokus. But it's not the focus of the series. Erikson is much more concerned with plot and awesome ideas than characters, and they are a weak link in the series, particular the fact that they pretty much all fall into the same few categories: the tough soldier with the heart of gold, the ancient and inscrutable demigod from before time who only speaks with portentous announcements, the 'funny' character with lots of funny lines and weird ideas who turns out to be majorly important, and the guy with deep integrity and honour who suffers for his honesty and usually ends up dying horribly and coming back two books later for no particular reason.

 

My two favortie series are WOT and ASOIAF so would I enjoy MBOTF?

 

Yes, broadly. If you also like Glen Cook, you may also like MBOTF as Cook was a major influence on Erikson's writing.

 

Does Erikson excel at this at that level early in this series...does it improve later...do we get to KNOW his characters in the way of the examples I gave above...Based on my tastes for excessive characterization and super fleshed-out characters, is Malaazan for me?

 

Probably not. MALAZAN is about plot, magic, worldbuilding and thematic ideas (and not very original ones either, stuff like, "Family is good," "War is bad," and "Capitalist exploitation of poorer countries' workforces is just another form of colonialism," although the latter is actually half-decently addressed), which are all much more important than character. Erikson also blows a lot of stuff up, usually quite impressively, and there are some good battles.

 

If characterisation is your #1 priority then MALAZAN might not be for you. However, I would suggest in that case ditching GARDENS and trying Book 2, DEADHOUSE GATES, which is set in a different part of the world with different characters, and is a viable alternate entry point to the series. Erikson's best characters are in Books 2 and 3 of the series (although Book 3 is a sequel to Book 1, so you'll need to at least catch up on an online summary of the book before reading 3) and they may be worth a look before giving up on the series.

 

Characterisation later on in the series is shoddy, at best, with most of the new characters being inferior and less interesting retreads of earlier characters.

[The Fisher King]

Wert...Thank you for your honest and well thought-out answers. I always respect your opinions a whole lot...and...in this case, you sadly confirmed what my instincts have been fearing all along regarding Malaazan Book of the Fallen.

 

I love exspansive ideas, huge spectacles, large scales and things going BOOM as much as the next guy...probably more so...trust me.

 

I can sit and watch the Death Star blow up or The Matrix all day...or Legolas slide down a giant elephants tusks while summersaulting and shooting arrows in the midst of an epic battle ;)

 

Or a Red Wedding...or Death Gates and Blossoms of Fire Exploding 10, 000 Trollocs ;)

 

BUT...if I am going to invest in starting a journey of about 10 - 12, 000 pages...I want to know that I will be also encountering DEEP and ONGOING Character Development throughout the series...I want to know that EARLY on I will know their hair color, eye color etc...

 

I want to know EARLY on the likes of a Borric ConDoin, a Lord Chaynal of Radzyn Keep, a Belgerath The Sorcer, a Mat Cauthon, a Eddard Stark, a Jamie Lannister, a Gandalf, a Raistlin Majere, a Moiraine Damodred...THAT type of amazing, evolving character that you just KNOW and just GET from like the first page.

 

And, I want to be able to visualize them early too...I know Mat usually has green coat and scarf on, a medallion, a hat with a broad-brim and usually a smirk or a grin on his face of dark eyes and hair...

 

I want to know early on how much shorter and smaller Pug is than other guys or how Ce Nedra constantly chews the ends of her coppery-red hair...or know that a sword like ICE constantly hangs from Eddard's side...that Lews Therin hums and pulls on his ear when pretty girls are near or that Belgarath's boots are mismatched...

 

I enjoyed Eddings and Feist and Weis-Hickman for these skills when I was younger, and still do now that I'm a little older...but I now also enjoy it from Rawn, Martin and Mr Jordan.

 

It always kills me when folks complain about Jordan or Martin's prose meandering off into the character's close, hair, thoughts, motivations, history, mannerisms, quirks, eye color, type of shirt, appearance in general...etc etc...but i LOVE that.

 

So...I hear so much great about Erikson's series and I SO WANT to be able to get into him...but I need to know that I will be getting an author like these others when it comes to description and characterization as well as his epic scope and cool spectacles.

 

Im afraid I have my answer from you, but I do appreciate your honesty.

 

 

Fish