Malazan books of the fallen

[timdgreat]

hey this is just a question going out to everyone here, does anyone know of or have read the Malazan books of the fallen? By steven Erikson.

i have just read the first two books,

Garden of the moon and Deadhouse gates,

and went to look online for #3 and found it was already in print

well this confused me because the last two books were just released.

so if anyone knows anything on this subject please let me know, its driving me crazy:dead: :rolly2:

 

[Rane Longfox]

I assume you're from America, tim? In Canada, Europe and Australia the first 6 have all been released, but in America the 4th is just due for publication soon. For loads more information (and a load of deadly dull threads all saying how amazing he is) check out the Erikson sub-forum in the authors section here, or go to www.malazanempire.com

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

You may be a little late with that response, Rane, seeing as how tim asked his question in March, 2005.

 

[Rane Longfox]

Well, you never know, it might work

 

[Cloud]

Well, I'm just going to post here, since it's handy. I have not read these books, but since coming to this forum, in a little over 2 weeks, I've become aware how popular they are with you all. So . . . next time I have a chance I'm going to check them out.

Sometimes it's hard for me to venture into a new F series, because lots of them seem superficial and formulaic, so I'm glad to have a recommendation of a good one.

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

We simply must introduce you to George Martin!

 

[Rane Longfox]

Martin good, Erikson better. It's like Author Farm

 

[nixie]

Martin good, Erikson better. It's like Author Farm

here here

 

[Jason_Taverner]

this post has made me depressed its an age until the next book booooo

 

[timdgreat]

thanks for info Rane, although i have since found the site, and have read through book 6 in the series, and i am now avidly waiting for book 7, the series just keeps getting better in my opinion

 

[aarti]

Ooh, I only have the first book on my shelf- as yet unread, but I am glad to hear that the first six books (of a projected ten, correct?) are written already. That should keep me busy for some time!

 

[Rane Longfox]

Aye, the first 6 are published (outside the US, at least) plus a number of side-novellas and suchlike. 3 new malazan books due for release next year, I think. Not the next three in Erikson's series, but the 7th, Reapers Gale, another novella and one by the co-creator on the series, Ian Cameron Esselmont

 

[Thadlerian]

Martin good, Erikson better.

And Bakker rules them both!
Finished The Warrior-Prophet half an hour ago. Horrible, gritty, a little too much for my taste, thus not quite as good as The Darkness that Comes Before, but still there's good vertical spacing between those two and the first three of Erikson that I've read. Bakker, as far as I've read him, seems to be the ultimate male Adult Fantasy writer.

 

[Green]

He is almost perfect. Unfortunately, The Thousandfold Thought is about 100 pages light and is missing the main character. But still good

 

[Rane Longfox]

Aye, The Thousandfold Thought is a severe let down, unfortunately

 

[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...