1. The near-seamless integration of non-white human, female soldiers, and lesbian (but not really male gay) characters is more startling when one stops to think about it, as there is no scene that tries to scream this out at readers.
I get the strong impression that the Malazan army is to a considerable extent inspired by the American army - the thing about minorities being so strongly present is of course also true for various other armies past and present, but still. I realized this while recently reading Band of Brothers, when I noticed that the Malazan army's structure with its heavy reliance on sergeants and general notion of the sergeants being the backbone of the army, seemed to come straight out of that book. But yes, one difference is that Erikson increased the role of women beyond what it is in any real-world army - and not just among the Malazans, either. He definitely tries to be feminist (and to a much lesser extent gay-friendly, as you note), by rejecting the idea that such integration of women in armed forces would be anything special.
In The Crippled God (the most recent Erikson book I've read), most of the military command on the "good" side consists of women, and the two men (Brys and Paran) are both quite far from the macho stereotypes you'd often come across in other fictional army commanders.
2. In light of having read the just-released Forge of Darkness before re-reading DHG, there was a surprising connection between that new book and a "past" scene in DHG.
Looking forward to reading FoD.
3. Lots of foreshadowing for the latter Erikson novels, as well as some in Esslemont's books. Not all that newsworthy, but there isn't that initial sense of "retconning" that I had when I first read the last three books of the main series.
I'm not surprised. I don't know if it's entirely the case that, as I once remember thinking, every new Malazan book casts a new light on every single one of the earlier books, but if not, they're not far off. Would be rather strange then if the change of direction in the last few novels hadn't been intended from the start.
4. Erikson does bromance quite well.
He certainly does. Better than romance.
5. He has new "favorite words" in each of the early volumes.
Really? Like which ones?
6. Friend didn't find Gardens of the Moon to be difficult at all. He could see a clear D&D origin in it, though.
I don't know that the plot is necessarily that difficult to follow, no... I think most of the people who call it "difficult" mean simply that they find it difficult to care about what is going on, since it's so intentionally unclear what the motivations are and what connects the various plotlines.
7. To him, Rake was at first yet another dark elf (I didn't realize this until I read those execrable D&D books earlier this month), yet with some potential to be something else other than the stock character.
Makes sense in a way, I guess, though the Tiste Andii as a race and Rake as a character are presented as the good guys pretty much from the start, the siege of Pale excepted. You could argue it's subversion of tropes, but I'm not sure if that's even the case... they have the skin/hair colour and near-immortality in common, yes, but that's about it.
9. In reference to my comment about the perceived didactic narrative of the latter books, he said this: " Erikson definately thinks about the meaning of what is behind the things that are happening, which alone puts him miles ahead of most of the other fantasy writers. Most epic fantasy is empty, like you said, good for a waste of time. It has nothing to say except to display the extent of time the author has spent thinking he has learned about battles."
Is that really necessarily a good thing though? I'm thinking in particular of that "bullies are evil" storyline in Toll the Hounds - if that's the way he inserts meanings into his book, I'd really rather he didn't. Fortunately most other cases aren't as bad, but still. Wasn't too impressed by the vacillating and inconclusive conclusions of the "nature should fight back against the outrages humans commit against her" plotline in The Crippled God, either.
So, if others who've read/are reading/have re-read the books want to comment on the little points above, feel free. It's been an interesting email exchange, since I didn't expect him to like the series that much (he reads even more weird/surrealist/Decadent fiction than I do).
That is kind of strange then, yes... Erikson does have some depth to his writing, but at the end of the day he still writes epic fantasy with a heavy stress on "epic", and much of the depth is simply the way he has an extremely complicated plot and backstory that he intentionally keeps mysterious, leaving the reader to figure out things for himself - it's less mindless than other fantasy, for sure, but is it really the kind of depth that picky readers are looking for? I would imagine that you yourself would recommend quite a number of speculative fiction works more than the Malazan books, and still more so if not for the nostalgia factor of the Erikson Reading Cult.
You went by Itkovian, no?
Observations made while a friend and I read/re-read the Malazan books
- 23/09/2012 07:16:19 PM
1375 Views
Interesting.
- 23/09/2012 08:26:48 PM
877 Views
I re-read Toll the Hounds this past weekend
- 08/10/2012 10:11:56 PM
659 Views
My commentary on Midnight Tides
- 27/09/2012 06:06:41 PM
958 Views