PDA

View Full Version : Steven Erikson


MountainBadger
08-07-2012, 04:01 PM
So Amazon just threw a Steven Erikson book into my "Recommended for You" section, but I've never read any of his books and the reviews seem to be mixed. Any opinions out there on his writing? Thanks!

yks 6nnetu hing
08-07-2012, 04:16 PM
So Amazon just threw a Steven Erikson book into my "Recommended for You" section, but I've never read any of his books and the reviews seem to be mixed. Any opinions out there on his writing? Thanks!

It varies, some people here really enjoy his books. I read the first three but was thoroughly annoyed even before starting chapter 1 of book 1, though most of that stems from Erikson's writing style: narcissism is just not my cup of tea.

If you like Jordan, and you haven't read them yet, try a Song of Ice and Fire by Martin or Hobb's Farseer and subsequent trilogies. Stylistically Rothfuss is also a bit similar to Jordan... oh, and of course Sanderson has some brilliant work of his own. The classics can be amusing, if only to see the somewhat dated ideologies float by: Anne MacCaffrey's Pern stories and Asimov are really entertaining.

Bill Door
08-07-2012, 04:38 PM
I'm actually about half way through the first in his Malazan Book of the Fallen series, and so far I've found it a little bit of a slog to get through. It's not that it's bad exactly, but you're thrown straight into the middle of a series of events about which you have no prior knowledge, in a world that you don't know, and with characters who've had a fairly messed up past. As you read through things do slowly start to make more sense as you get to know the characters and the setting. I've been informed by the person who recommended it to me that the series keeps getting better and better, but I can't confirm that for myself yet.

It's also quite heavy on the doom and gloom side of things, so if that's not your cup of tea I'd give it a miss.

I'd also second yks 6nnetu hing's suggestion of Rothfuss. In my opinion his is the best new series to come out in the last few years.

MountainBadger
08-07-2012, 05:57 PM
It varies, some people here really enjoy his books. I read the first three but was thoroughly annoyed even before starting chapter 1 of book 1, though most of that stems from Erikson's writing style: narcissism is just not my cup of tea.

If you like Jordan, and you haven't read them yet, try a Song of Ice and Fire by Martin or Hobb's Farseer and subsequent trilogies. Stylistically Rothfuss is also a bit similar to Jordan... oh, and of course Sanderson has some brilliant work of his own. The classics can be amusing, if only to see the somewhat dated ideologies float by: Anne MacCaffrey's Pern stories and Asimov are really entertaining.

Thanks for the feedback. When this recommendation popped up, I thought I'd seek some advice before I made the financial commitment since I already have the GRRM series and am trying to fit them in sometime during my current WOT reread. I am always adding more books to my reading list than I have time to read. Now I'm going to have to add some of your recommendations. Thanks again!

Fin
08-07-2012, 11:17 PM
I am currently reading the Malazan book of the fallen series. I am on the third book Memories of Ice. I really do enjoy the book but i was also a fan of the Black Company and it kinda reminds me of it. Not to mention Kruppe is one of my favorite characters in the series so far.

rand
08-07-2012, 11:39 PM
Erikson himself has said people either love the books or hate them. Personally I love them, and though WoT is my favorite fantasy series, Malazan is probably in second place. Just a few random thoughts on it:

While the core plot itself is easy enough to follow, there are parts of the story where you kind of just read a passage over, sit there, and think ok, wtf just happened? A lot of it is simply never explained satisfactorily. Many of the characters are very similar to each other. Erikson also seems to have a habit of creating at least one "badass" character per book, which gets kind of weird when some of them are defeated by characters presumably weaker than they are or just killed off randomly altogether. As for the writing itself, I think it gets better as the series goes on. Ironically, though, the story kind of gets worse (not too bad, though) as it goes on, too. Also, I don't think Erikson's humor always works very well. Sometimes he's funny, but a lot of the time you can almost hear SE thinking, ok, I going to be funny now.

As for what's good... If you like battle scenes, no one in fantasy writes them better than Erikson. And while action doesn't always equal a good story, the books always end with an over-the-top but awesome conclusion. If you like extensive histories in fantasy works, the Malazan world has a 300,000 year history, much of which (well, sort of) is revealed as the series goes. It's kind of fun to have the history be revealed through vague, brief snippets over the course of the series. The series is also very fast-paced, with PoV changes occurring rapidly, sort of like the Cleansing scene in WoT, but for the entire course of the books. And then, of course, there's the fact that Erikson actually finished his series in a timely fashion, with no need to keep adding in new books to draw the story out.

Uno
08-08-2012, 12:11 AM
Couldn't get through the first book of the series, even though I started on it while I was stuck a week alone in Albany doing archival research. Too much magical rubbish to my mind. Stop by my house and you can have my copy.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-08-2012, 02:08 AM
Erikson himself has said people either love the books or hate them. and THAT is why I was pre-annoyed before even starting the first chapter. I made the mistake of reading the foreword where he congratulates himself and preens like a little goblin on a pile of manure. Personally, I got rather peeved when he compared himself to Umberto Eco. Nobody gets to compare THEMSELVES to Eco who is possibly the best writer alive in terms of intricate story-telling and excellent prose, infused with top-notch humour and combined with deep philosophical and ethical thought (Recommended reading: Foucault's Pendulum). Particularly considering that Erikson completely ignores the philosophical and ethical thought and his humour is very slapstick.

But anyways, as I said, my problems with Malazan stem directly from the writing style which I consider to be self-congratulatory and narcissistic while actually never even reaching to the mediocre level of the Fantasy genre.

While the core plot itself is easy enough to follow, there are parts of the story where you kind of just read a passage over, sit there, and think ok, wtf just happened? A lot of it is simply never explained satisfactorily. that I dont'have a problem with. It's all magic, right, so it doesn't have to make sense. Same with the timeline issues, btw.

Many of the characters are very similar to each other. Erikson also seems to have a habit of creating at least one "badass" character per book, which gets kind of weird when some of them are defeated by characters presumably weaker than they are or just killed off randomly altogether. As for the writing itself, I think it gets better as the series goes on. Ironically, though, the story kind of gets worse (not too bad, though) as it goes on, too. Also, I don't think Erikson's humor always works very well. Sometimes he's funny, but a lot of the time you can almost hear SE thinking, ok, I going to be funny now. I had serious problems relating to his characters. The ones I liked it was obvious the reader was not supposed to like and/or they got killed off.

As for what's good... If you like battle scenes, no one in fantasy writes them better than Erikson. And while action doesn't always equal a good story, the books always end with an over-the-top but awesome conclusion. uh. Disagree heavily on that one. Jordan writes good battle scenes, as does Sanderson, as does Rothfuss. But not Erikson, his are... I just couldn't get excited about them, but that may be because I really didn't care who won, so that harks back to the character thing and the prose thing.

If you like extensive histories in fantasy works, the Malazan world has a 300,000 year history, much of which (well, sort of) is revealed as the series goes. It's kind of fun to have the history be revealed through vague, brief snippets over the course of the series. The series is also very fast-paced, with PoV changes occurring rapidly, sort of like the Cleansing scene in WoT, but for the entire course of the books. And then, of course, there's the fact that Erikson actually finished his series in a timely fashion, with no need to keep adding in new books to draw the story out.

I did like the history being revealed in snippets, I thought that was clevelry done. But the series is IMHO not that fast-paced, it moves like a glacier, grinding underneath it the poor creatures (=characters) who get in the way. Which, actually, I found a quite interesting way to write a story. I just wouldn't call it fast-paced, lol.

all in all, as I said in the beginning, most of my issues with the series have to do with the writing style (and the fact that the writer is a narcissistic twit), if you don't have that problem then I suspect you might enjoy the series.

Figbiscuit
08-08-2012, 04:36 AM
and THAT is why I was pre-annoyed before even starting the first chapter. I made the mistake of reading the foreword where he congratulates himself and preens like a little goblin on a pile of manure.


:D :D

I have read the first...three...or maybe four now. I am persevering with them because I like a challenge, but they do not suck me in like other series. I much preferred Game of Thrones, despite the obvious flaws.

Is the Farseer trilogy the first of Robin Hobb's book sets? I have seen him in the shops over the years but am I right in thinking he has a number of different series? I was never sure where to start...

yks 6nnetu hing
08-08-2012, 04:58 AM
Is the Farseer trilogy the first of Robin Hobb's book sets? I have seen him in the shops over the years but am I right in thinking he has a number of different series? I was never sure where to start...

Her. Robin Hobb is a she. There are three finished trilogies and one unfinished series (I think it will be a quadrilogy; 3 are out in any case) in the Six Dutchies/Elderling realm; the first book in the first trilogy and the logical starting point is Assassin's Apprentice. If you like Fitz (main character of Assassin's Apprentice), then technically you could skip the 2nd trilogy, the Liveship Traders one - though personally, I liked that one the best, and it is good to have read the 2nd before you read the 4th series.

She also has a trilogy set in a completely different world which most of her normal fans didn't like as much but I thought it was really quite interesting, particularly the topics of identity and body image she brought up there.

Davian93
08-08-2012, 08:20 AM
Her. Robin Hobb is a she. There are three finished trilogies and one unfinished series (I think it will be a quadrilogy; 3 are out in any case) in the Six Dutchies/Elderling realm; the first book in the first trilogy and the logical starting point is Assassin's Apprentice. If you like Fitz (main character of Assassin's Apprentice), then technically you could skip the 2nd trilogy, the Liveship Traders one - though personally, I liked that one the best, and it is good to have read the 2nd before you read the 4th series.

She also has a trilogy set in a completely different world which most of her normal fans didn't like as much but I thought it was really quite interesting, particularly the topics of identity and body image she brought up there.


She? Okay, now you're just being silly. Girls cant write books.

Seriously though, not a big fan of Erikson. I own the first 3 and have lost my way about 100 pages into the 1st one each time I've tried to get into them.

Guy Gavriel Kay (GGK) is another great author to read...FWIW.

Figbiscuit
08-08-2012, 09:02 AM
Her. Robin Hobb is a she. There are three finished trilogies and one unfinished series (I think it will be a quadrilogy; 3 are out in any case) in the Six Dutchies/Elderling realm; the first book in the first trilogy and the logical starting point is Assassin's Apprentice. If you like Fitz (main character of Assassin's Apprentice), then technically you could skip the 2nd trilogy, the Liveship Traders one - though personally, I liked that one the best, and it is good to have read the 2nd before you read the 4th series.

She also has a trilogy set in a completely different world which most of her normal fans didn't like as much but I thought it was really quite interesting, particularly the topics of identity and body image she brought up there.

Ooops, my bad. Thanks tho, I will look them up. I'm slowly starting to buy books for my Kindle now, they might be a good addition to my wish list :)

Ieyasu
08-08-2012, 04:53 PM
garbage. complete and utter garbage!

starts in the middle with a bunch of people you dont give a shit about... I can understand a book sucking for a few chapters before picking up, but a series that sucks for 3 or 4 books before getting moderately better is just trash...

Sukoto
08-08-2012, 06:25 PM
I have read the whole series. I liked it. I didn't love it, and I didn't hate it. There isn't a very solid plot to the whole thing. There is just too much going on in every book. Too many civilizations, too many characters. Too many gods, demi-gods, emperors, generals, mages, wizards and other crazy-powerful beings.

You kind of have this sense through most of the books that the Crippled God is important. But you're not really sure why until the very end. And then you're still not really sure what the whole deal was with him.

My favorite character in the books was Karsa Orlong. I was hoping he would have a meaningful part in the last book, but no... At least he kicked a$$ absolutely everywhere he went.

I was disappointed with Silverfox, but maybe that was the point. I didn't really like Icarium, either. His storyline didn't really make much sense to me in the end. And I didn't like the whole jade giant thing. It was just weird. "Hey everybody, the world is about to end! Wait... nevermind, someone just saved the world. Carry on."

Terez
08-08-2012, 07:02 PM
Watch the spoilers. I know you were vague-ish, but in a thread designated for people who haven't read the books, it's best to use spoiler tags. I haven't finished the series yet and it seemed a little spoilery to me. Okay, it was a lot spoilery.

Dragon Thief
08-08-2012, 08:55 PM
It has some awesome characters. Except that once you like them, they tend to not show up that much anymore. Or have any useful explanations.

The plot is straight out of a D&D campaign by a bad DM. Seriously. The origins of his world were for a D&D campaign that he and the other author played and tried to turn into a script for screen and failed. So they decided to novelize it. It shows. Badly. Virtually all of the inconsistencies, timeline issues, and flat out errors by the author are likely to stem from what playing with (or being) a bad DM at D&D.

There are absolute huge chunks of boring ... words. That sounds stupid (they are books), but it was just repetitious nonsense. Not filler, just bloat. RJ's repetition was bad in the middle (Elayne's baths et all), but SE doesn't even pretend for his words to be other than bloat, IMO.

The end of the story ruined the whole series for me, fwiw.

Durvasha
08-08-2012, 09:11 PM
I finished the whole series. Seemed like playing Diablo 2. I mean, it is less a book and more a RPG plot but one where you change characters in-between different scenes.

My pet peeves: Magic is really magical [No idea what anyone can do at any time. Great feats just pulled out of ... (wherever)]. Fighting (swordplay) is really fantastic, where other people stand around and say "wow! what a fantastic fight" and you have to believe them (telling, never showing). Apart from the magic, the random things are more common than common happenstance. You are following an awesome character who looks invincible and he suddenly trips on a stone and breaks his neck (exaggeration but not too much). Then a wimp (so far) comes out of a crowd, and fills the void that death created. About 500 characters who can destroy the world at a whim. Another 500 who can but who do not know they can. Finally, the climax of the book was wimpy. The conclusion of a 10-book series ends as a setup for several other books. :mad:

Lol, then why did I read it? Well, I liked it well enough in the beginning, the middles and until slightly before the end. Only after the end, when I felt completely ripped off, did I go back and analyze what I had read. And decided to never buy any of his other books again.

The Ending is just slightly better than that of the Gunslinger series :D .



Edited to Add: Dragon Thief has said nearly the same things a me, while I was typing.

rand
08-08-2012, 10:12 PM
I agree that Erikson is very arrogant, but I guess I don't mind that too much. Then again, IMO at least, his works are as good as if not better than most others in the fantasy genre, so I feel like he earns at least a part of that arrogance. Though I agree his writing style is a bit much at times in this regard.



Also, it seems like a lot of people's complaints involve the fact that the ending isn't satisfactory, several characters just drop out of the story randomly, etc. One thing I think new readers should keep in mind is that the entire series, epic in scale though it is, is itself only a very small snippet of what's going on in the world at the time. There are many issues going on in the world, so rather than cover each one fully, SE shows a part of a lot of different ones, mostly so he can write about them later and have readers already familiar with the general idea.

One thing I like about this is that it makes the world seem more realistic. In WoT, you never really get much of a sense that there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on outside Randland. And it's not that nothing is happening, but RJ just chose to focus mainly on Rand because it's his story. But in Malazan, you get introduced to many more/more varied cultures, even if they aren't directly related to the story. I think it's just a matter of preference, though. A lot of people hate it; I tend to enjoy it.

One more point about the conclusion to the series (no spoilers). Again, just my opinion, by I actually like the fact that you don't get all the answers at the end. I'd always thought it would be cool to have a fantasy series where you get all the answers at the end, but after reading Mistborn, I'm not so sure. Sanderson basically seems to go through a checklist of unanswered questions in the third book, resulting in what I thought was a really clunky conclusion to the trilogy. The Crippled God is by no means a perfect conclusion to Malazan, but I think a lot of people read it expecting to get complete answers to the series, and that just isn't how Erikson chooses to reveal the Malazan world, love it or hate it.

Davian93
08-09-2012, 09:12 AM
I agree on the ending of Mistborn...I absolutely hated it.

Terez
08-09-2012, 10:12 AM
I agree that Erikson is very arrogant, but I guess I don't mind that too much. Then again, IMO at least, his works are as good as if not better than most others in the fantasy genre, so I feel like he earns at least a part of that arrogance. Though I agree his writing style is a bit much at times in this regard.
I happened to enjoy his style more as the books went on, which seems to be opposite to the more long-term fans of the series. I just got a little lost by the time it got to DOD with no reread, which I probably won't manage until WoT is done. TTH made me really happy because of the unique approach he took to the narrative (mostly as it relates to Kruppe). What didn't make me happy was that old Andii dude and his internal monologues. I skimmed the hell out of those chapters. I will probably read them more closely next time when I'm not so anxious to find out what happens. I was also a bit grossed out at times; I understand he was writing that one when his father died? Or just after. It was a dark book.

SauceyBlueConfetti
08-22-2012, 09:57 AM
I read this when you first wrote it and have been mulling it over periodically since then. A friend is reading the series right now, and close to completing The Crippled God, so lots of back and forth have occurred. I have purposefully NOT talked to him too much about anything so as to allow him to form his own opinions. I have been curious to see his reactions to things that I liked/bothered me as well and not wanted to taint him.

So here are a few responses...keep in mind, in the end I LOVED these books. Yes, I agree with a lot of criticisms, but in the end I understood much more of the point of it all.

Particularly considering that Erikson completely ignores the philosophical and ethical thought and his humour is very slapstick. I disagree. His characters, many of them, struggle with the philosophical issues throughout the books. To me they feel more real, as they quite often make bad choices, wrong choices, selfish, evil choices. That makes them much more believable. Shining beacons of light bore me. The slapstick I find amusing, and again, very real. I spend my days doing what others may consider dreary work, but interspersed in my day are hysterical comments, entertaining stories, foolish mistakes, etc. Humor is what I live for in my day to day life. These characters seem more real to me than Nynaeve and her braid pulling.

But anyways, as I said, my problems with Malazan stem directly from the writing style which I consider to be self-congratulatory and narcissistic while actually never even reaching to the mediocre level of the Fantasy genre. I didn't read the forward. I never do. That may be a good thing, may be a bad thing. I stay away from author details much more now that I have come to realize GRRM is kind of a douchebag in real life. That made me sad. And has taken some of the joy out of SoIaF for me. :( So, I do totally understand your annoyance with SE and how it could taint the entire reading process. I like his take on fantasy. Everything is confusing, just like real life. No one knows what is occuring 300 miles away, EXCEPT the Gods. Sometimes anyway. The Magic doesn't always make sense to me, or even the characters. Should it? No. Weird shit happens at random points. Again, just like my life. ;)

I had serious problems relating to his characters. The ones I liked it was obvious the reader was not supposed to like and/or they got killed off. aaaaah. Here I laugh. I have found, from discussions, that most folks LIKE the same characters that I do and I would guess they might overlap with your choices. I think that is part of SE's value and is in part intentional. I like the mean guys, the nasty guys, the sad guys. Quite a few died. Many had very brief appearances.

Jordan writes good battle scenes, as does Sanderson, as does Rothfuss. But not Erikson, his are... I just couldn't get excited about them, but that may be because I really didn't care who won, so that harks back to the character thing and the prose thing.

The only battle scenes that really truly "got" me in WoT were "Asha'man, Kill!", one of the Seanchan exchanges and Ituralde's scenes. The White Tower battle in particular = BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Erickson's battle scenes made me taste the dirt and dust and oil.

I am, as mentioned, awaiting the final page turning of a friend. Upon completion I had to sit and stew on it for a while before I thought...O.M.G. I get it. I get it. At first I was mad, sad, confused as there is an abruptness to it that made me wrinkle my brow. Then let it all soak in and I re-read the last few chapters, flipped around a bit to look up old, odd bits, and then I was A-MAZED by the scope of the books. I like the ending. I like the books.

So Yks dear, I adore you, but :p I disagree!

yks 6nnetu hing
08-23-2012, 02:47 AM
spoilers from the first 3 books ahead! fair warning now!

It is difficult for me to clear up in my head whether I dislike some parts of the books because I dislike those parts of the books or if it's something that's transferred from other parts. Perhaps after reading and hating the first three books, I just love to hate them?To me they feel more real, as they quite often make bad choices, wrong choices, selfish, evil choices. That makes them much more believable. Shining beacons of light bore me. Oh I agree, shining beacons of light are not much fun at all. However, I never once got the impression that an Erikson character was faced with a deep personal dilemma and put a lot of thought into the choice. Yes, bad choices were made as well as good, but I didn't *feel* like any of it was done with any thought for the characters' own development. A lot of it felt like skipping around on a forest path and randomly picking which way to go. Not that randomness is a bad thing, it's just that too much of it makes the story unbelievable. Kind of like one of the absurd jokes I usually quite like: "the purple and the horse sat and knitted tree branches, but look, a table flew by!" It's amusing for a while but a whole series like that? no thank you.
the whole Jaghut and friend traipsing, for example. There was supposed to be some big drama in the past about this one, sure, but the day-to-day actions were very much along the lines of "shall we take the right turn or the left? this will have strong impact on the Universe as we know it. I don't know what to do. Left it is"

The slapstick I find amusing, and again, very real. I spend my days doing what others may consider dreary work, but interspersed in my day are hysterical comments, entertaining stories, foolish mistakes, etc. Humor is what I live for in my day to day life. These characters seem more real to me than Nynaeve and her braid pulling. to me, there's good slapstick and there's bad slapstick. Charlie Chaplin is good slapstick, the Three Stooges is bad slapstick. Terry Pratchett is brilliant slapstick but Erikson's funny moments don't really fit with the story. And very much a matter of taste - I don't like the taste of milk for example, that's not to say that milk is disgusting in and of itself, it's just not for me.

I didn't read the forward. I never do. That may be a good thing, may be a bad thing. I stay away from author details much more now that I have come to realize GRRM is kind of a douchebag in real life. That made me sad. And has taken some of the joy out of SoIaF for me. :( So, I do totally understand your annoyance with SE and how it could taint the entire reading process. depending on the author, the foreword and/or the afterword can be really great. I love the Bernard Cornwell afterwords, but that's because of the genre he writes in: he goes into detail about which characters were real people and how much he took literary liberty with which bits of the story. To me, that's the juiciest part of his writing, to be able to get a look behind the scenes, so to speak. I also like the author's notes of GGK and Umberto Eco, it's always fun to see whethere they got their inspiration from the places I thought they did, and sometimes to be surprised with a bit you didn't see the first time, and wanting to read the story again just to have that extra bit of perspective... The foreword on Ender's Game is really interesting. On the other hand, the foreword of Erickson basically says "if you hate my book, you're not intelligent enough to appreciate it" - I don't particularly like to be insulted before even starting to read the book; but you know, I gave it a chance and read three whole volumes, hundreds and hundreds of pages of text and it was not good. It simply wasn't enjoyable for me, not on an emotional level, certianly not on an intellectual level and even the humour, as I said, I couldn't relate to.

I like his take on fantasy. Everything is confusing, just like real life. No one knows what is occuring 300 miles away, EXCEPT the Gods. Sometimes anyway. The Magic doesn't always make sense to me, or even the characters. Should it? No. Weird shit happens at random points. Again, just like my life. ;) I didn't have a huge problem with the confusing bit. I had a problem with the repetitive confusion, meaning the example of absurd humour I gave above.

I have found, from discussions, that most folks LIKE the same characters that I do and I would guess they might overlap with your choices. I think that is part of SE's value and is in part intentional. I like the mean guys, the nasty guys, the sad guys. Quite a few died. Many had very brief appearances. I found the big sword dude to be really boring, he was supposed to be this big warrior guy with a murky past and magic and whatnot, and he kept doing random things for no reason whatsoever. I liked the girl who became the storm witch or whatever, I thought there was some rare emotion written into her story. Kruppe was amusing at first but as the story progressed, I got more and more annoyed by him... I liked the original Tattersail, hated whatever became of her.

The only battle scenes that really truly "got" me in WoT were "Asha'man, Kill!", one of the Seanchan exchanges and Ituralde's scenes. The White Tower battle in particular = BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Erickson's battle scenes made me taste the dirt and dust and oil. you really need to read Cornwell. his storylines are sometimes simple, but his battles are superb! you are able to see and hear the confusion of a battlefield, the smell of blood, the way the main characters foot gets tangled in the guts of a disemboweled enemy as he steps over him to slash at the next guy, it's just... roar and grit and noise and adrenaline. He's also very good at the concept of "every battle plan lasts as long as the first shot is fired. After that it's chaos and you only hope to survive". Bernard Cornwell is the best battle scene writer I've ever read, bar none. RJ on the other hand was good at the tactical battle, now and then focusing in on single combatants, it's less vivid but the tactical aspect of it balances it out. Reading RJ's battles is more like watching an expert game of chess. Sanderson is great at single combat, it's fast and exciting and quite original in the way he makes the combatants use the environment. Erikson's on the other hand are - to me - much like an afterthought written in order to get to the point.
the whole Chain of Dogs (I think?) book was one big battle, right? with the point of it being everyone dies in the end; that was clearly where the book was going and that's where it went with very little surprises along the way. I won't even get into how ridiculous I found that the only person with a clear military understanding of the whole situation aside from the general guy was the historian, that was just... so poor storybuilding I wanted to cry. If I remember correctly at that point I had to put the book down and just breathe for a bit, just marveling at how horribly, fascinatinly stupid it is that every single solider and officer in the whole army has less tactical military understanding on the situation than a historian.

I am, as mentioned, awaiting the final page turning of a friend. Upon completion I had to sit and stew on it for a while before I thought...O.M.G. I get it. I get it. At first I was mad, sad, confused as there is an abruptness to it that made me wrinkle my brow. Then let it all soak in and I re-read the last few chapters, flipped around a bit to look up old, odd bits, and then I was A-MAZED by the scope of the books. I like the ending. I like the books.

So Yks dear, I adore you, but :p I disagree!

right back at you :) I think some books are simply a matter of taste. There are lots of tastes in the world and it would be horribly boring if everyone would like the exact same things.

SauceyBlueConfetti
08-24-2012, 11:26 AM
the Three Stooges is bad slapstick

Gasp! Oh no. Oh no, no, no, no, no!

yks 6nnetu hing
08-27-2012, 01:23 AM
Gasp! Oh no. Oh no, no, no, no, no!

I know. But I can't stomach it. Same way I get an almost violent reaction to The Office. it's just wrong to laugh at other people's misery like that.

DahLliA
08-27-2012, 10:48 AM
I love the Malazan books.

Only series that beat WoT in my book(pun intended).

But yeah. They're not everyone's bowl of soup.

maacaroni
08-28-2012, 05:56 AM
The series peaked at Deadhouse gates then got progressively confusing, self-defeating and up-its-own-arse.

I persevered until the Crippled God and felt cheated by the non-ending. Nothing was explained. How very post-modern and sh*t.

Ian Cameron Esslemont's books are the cypher, as at least he EXPLAINS things.

Malazan is the Finnegan's Wake of Fantasy.