Gardens of the Moon frustration

[Eliot Wild]

This is my first post on this site, so please forgive me if I rumple some feathers of Erikson's fans. I don't mean to do so, and frankly I think the man is a unique fantasist with amazingly rare talent. However...


I think Erikson's skill, at least as demonstrated in GotM, which this thread is about (not all his other books), was still developing at that time. I cannot, so I won't, comment on subsequent books. I've read two others, Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice, but I've not read his most recent installments in the series, and again, these other books and all subsequent novels are not the subject of this thread, so I'm just focusing on GotM.

Erikson's fantasy concept, as well as his uniquely stylized prose voice and narrative delivery, are breathtakingly ambitious things for fantasy literature. But... GotM really highlights some weaknesses he has as a storyteller. And I know people might counter-argue that if the story is enjoyed by others at all, then it is a success. The writer is a best-selling author. He has his fans -- no doubt. And I am one of 'em, for that matter, but only to a certain degree. My contention is that he is a best-seller not because of his often vaguely cryptic prose style, but despite it.

I think GotM shows Erikson struggling somewhat, challenged to reach a functional balance between complexity of world-building and clarity in storytelling. And yes, I just stole that line, somewhat, from a brilliant reviewer named Thomas M. Wagner. But I think it is the best description of Erikson and his first novel that I've thus far read.

 

[Behni]

Also, as another negative, I find I don't really care much about the characters - I can't think of one character death I would be devastated by. However I do find some of the characters really interesting in terms of their motivations and so on.

I find this an interesting statement. I've just begun a re-read from the beginning as I was losing track of what went before. I had let too much time go between novels.

I think that it is almost crazy that Erikson begins the book with characters who are not named, but that you can figure out who they are by description. It's as if he knew we'd be going back and reading the beginning after having gotten to know the characters. When I first figured out that it was Fiddler and Whiskeyjack speaking, I actually got misty eyed, and realized how much I had come to like these imaginary people.

My start to the series was in the LOOOOOOOOOONG break between ASOIAF novels. My friend lent me Deadhouse Gates and I was hooked by word one. Then I realized that I had just read the second book in a series, which is a huge pet peeve of mine. I have to start at book one, darnit.

I do tend to compare GRRM with Erikson, and despite the fact that I was a diehard GRRM fan, I much prefer the Malazan world. It's frighteningly complex, but just so darn interesting. It makes you think as you read it, and constantly check in with whose story and what timeline you are reading about.

 

[kshRox]

. Is this just part of the books or am I imcompetent? Alternatively, I've heard there is a second series that goes with this universe, should I read this first??? Oh God... someone just help me...

I bought GotM and didn't care for it at all. I didn't think it was a big deal, just put the book down and moved on to something else.

I really liked Dan Simmons Hyperion, thought his take on AI was pretty cool. I like some of Carel Berg's stuff. I recently bought Jim Butcher upon the recommendations of a forum but haven't started it yet.

I never thought of not liking a book as anything to do with competence. Just like some friends who have common interests with me where have some great times or conversations doesn't mean we agree on everything. I like to talk to my buddies in a spec-fiction meetup about stuff the guys on the softball team would just quirk and eyebrow and look at me funny about.

 

[the Jester]

Personally, when I read GotM, I almost lost interest in it by the time I was halfway in- there were too many obvious "gamer fiction" bits, and the writing, while fair, wasn't as good as many other authors whom I favor.

But I prefer to finish a book unless it's truly terrible, so I kept going, and when I got to the big party at the end, I really enjoyed the payoff. And the description of the Jaghut tyrant's power struck me, too, so I stayed with the series.

GotM is far and away the poorest-written Malazan book (and it's "good enough" IMHO, if not excellent), but it is totally worth getting through in order to read the rest of the series. The Malazan Book of the Fallen became my favorite fantasy series by House of Chains, and I found the final volume to be quite satisfying. That's not something I can say about a lot of fantasy and sci-fi.

 

[DragonKhan25]

To be honest I struggled with the first book up until around two fifths of the way through. Then everything started to sink in. I know so many people who put it down out of frustration though