[kosmoface]

Hi there!

I'm just reading "Gardens of the Moon" and I have a hard time getting into it. I'm at page 200 and to come that far I needed weeks. Normally I read 1 or 2 books in that timespan.

I always have the feeling that Erikson has so much plot, that he (thinks he) has no time to 'rest' with his characters or places. If he stays with something for more than a paragraph it's long. Everytime I think: oh now it's beginnig, I can learn who this character really is - he switches to totally different characters and places.

It's like he's always hearing this voice in his mind: "move! move! move! you have no time, there's more to come, faaaaassssst, so much plot, so much plot" and totally forgets about everything else.

I really want to read about the Malazan Empire, but this prose is so choppy I can't get into it. At times I think I read a shopping list. After page 180 I thought he finally gets into a rhythm, but no. Right now I stopped reading and begun Guy Gavriel Kays "Last Light of the Sun" and I immediately got hooked, because it leaves me as a reader time to breathe, Kay is taking me with him on this adventure, whereas I feel Erikson is stuffing my throat with as much as his concept is offering in a very short timespan for no need other than he thinks he has to cram his book with very much information. Why he thinks this, I don't know.

So here's my question: I guess it was Eriksons first book he's ever wrote, right? So every author should get a bit leeway and I really WANT to read these 10 books, but is this choppy writing style continuing? I don't know if I want to have that for 10 books. Oh and I only talk about his writing style, the story is - so far - pretty much okay with me.

[Magemanda]

I'm sure many people will tell you to persevere with Erikson, that he is great. Personally I also struggled through Gardens of the Moon and then never actually picked up the second, which, I'm assured, is way better than the first. I intend to give them both a try at some point, but I just wanted you to know that you're not alone in finding the book a difficult slog.

[kosmoface]

I'm sure many people will tell you to persevere with Erikson, that he is great. Personally I also struggled through Gardens of the Moon and then never actually picked up the second, which, I'm assured, is way better than the first. I intend to give them both a try at some point, but I just wanted you to know that you're not alone in finding the book a difficult slog.

Thank you, that's encouraging. :)

Well, I can see that there's something big in it. It has a certain quality, but I'm unsure if I like this,

And I certainly don't have anything against complex stories (hell no, I love David Lynch Movies to pieces). And I don't really care if I understand everything from the get go, I rather like this feeling, it is just... I feel I read the concept instead of reading the book based on said concept.

It's like a dissertation. Info, Info, Info - nothing else. The author it seems doesn't care about me as the reader. And the single biggest gripe I have about it: I don't feel entertained.

I don't care what happens to anyone, I'm removed from the story. When I watch a Lynch movie for the first time I certainly don't understand everything BUT I am entertained. It's funny, it's creepy - I can feel it. I feel nothing with Gardens of the Moon.

The concepts presented to me right now are far from original, the characters don't get enough screentime, the environments... well he's describing them, but there's nothing. In other books I can smell the scent of the wood. Every time I think this could be interesting, he's switching places and characters. It angers me a little bit.

I ask: For what should I like this book? The vast amount of plotpoints? Are there characters I might want to remember later on?

I'm interested in storytelling, yet it reads to me like plottelling. There was only one sequence where I thought he actually wrote something - in 200 pages. I expect certainly more and as a reader feel betrayed. It's barebones storytelling (to say the least) and I thought I bought meat.

Yet I know I've only read 220 pages and feel a little bit dirty to make my mind up like this without having read the whole book. On the other hand: expectations are hight after so much praise.

[AuntiePam]

"Plot-telling" -- I like that. Good description, for big chunks of the books. I enjoy the books while I'm reading them but when I'm done, almost nothing stays with me. In each book there are sections where I'm entranced, so I keep reading, but I'm always reluctant to start the next one -- it feels like a chore, something to cross off the to-do list.

Like you say, some breathing space would be nice, but we don't get any.

[Jon Sprunk]

I'm about 2/3 through Memories of Ice (the fourth book, if I'm remembering correctly), and I can tell you that Erikson doesn't change his style much. You may enjoy the characters more in Book 2, but the storytelling will remain the same.

Everyone has different tastes, so don't be disappointed that you don't like a certain book. Some folks love a fast change-of-pace style story, while others like a more leisurely journey.

[savs165]

I actually made a similar thread here: (http://sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24268)

I think Im the only person that wasnt bothered by his writing style. But what bothered me is the plot jumping. I found it to probably be the most complicated fantasy book Ive ever read. When I finished it, I felt utterly confused and not sure what to make of it. But as most people already said, Im determined to stick with the series for a while and read at least the next two books. I hope it gets easier. But overall, even if I dont stick with it, I should say I have complete respect for Mr. Erikson for creating something amazing and complex.

[kosmoface]

I'm about 2/3 through Memories of Ice (the fourth book, if I'm remembering correctly), and I can tell you that Erikson doesn't change his style much. You may enjoy the characters more in Book 2, but the storytelling will remain the same.

Everyone has different tastes, so don't be disappointed that you don't like a certain book. Some folks love a fast change-of-pace style story, while others like a more leisurely journey.

Normally I don't have such problems with a writing style, because of that I asked.

Thanks Jon and the others for the information. :) This was all I wanted to know.

Now its up to me, I guess. I'm willing to give this series another chance - but not right now. I believe I will take it with me on vacation, if I am fortunate enough to have a vacation (the last time it took me 10 years, so this will be a long term project ;) ). It seems these books require my full attention and I can't keep the momentum with my everyday life around me.

I have complete respect for Mr. Erikson for creating something amazing and complex.

And so do I. Even though I've read very little I think I can understand what dimensions these 10 books will inherit. There's quality in it. I only criticise that he's making it (in my eyes) unnecessary hard to swallow.

[Eliot Wild]

"The author it seems doesn't care about me as the reader. And the single biggest gripe I have about it: I don't feel entertained."

--kosmoface


I am currently reading GOTM for a book club discussion, and I don't think I would have stuck with it if I were just reading it on my own.

I am like you, kosmoface, in that I read to be entertained. I certainly like to be challenged, intellectually and conscientiously. I like stories that make me think and test my abilities as a reader. And I like stories that force me to reconsider my "moral perspective"; this is what I mean by challenging me conscientiously. I like stories, and characters within stories, that contain varying shades of gray and don't just give me a bedtime fairy tale with obvious good guys and obvious bad guys.

I think Erikson was striving for something like that, but he just fails to entertain me. And it's not just the disjointed, non-linear narrative that jumps everywhere, failing to follow a straight line or path. But the author seems to be needlessly vague. I understand an author's attempts to be somewhat obscure. A little mystery and misdirection allows for a certain amount of functional tension which I personally believe is essential for a good story. But to deliberately withhold items of common knowledge, things the reader would certainly know about were we actual inhabitants of this imaginary world, appears to me, at least, to be somewhat of a cheap mechanism or trick just to heighten the enigma and the esoteric nature of the story.

I think it is just a matter of personal taste when it come right down to it. Because many others love Erikson's writing style and his Malazan series. I personally like to have a little more foundation and less ambiguity in my stories. I am not saying I need the sort of mundane details and descriptive minutia that comes from, let's say, a Robert Jordan type writer, but a little bit of narrative coloring and better story development would have gone a long way in making Erikson's book more entertaining to me personally.

[metalprof]

I'm a little more than 1/3 of the way into Memories of Ice, and while the style doesn't change much, I have gotten more used to it - so keep giving it a chance, much like you may have given coffee or beer a chance even though your first ever taste of it made you spit it out in surprise that something that smells so good can taste so bad .... at first :)

I liken reading Erikson to driving over rumble strips. It's a rough ride and rarely goes smoothly, but somehow it's an interesting experience anyway.

I don't think that I've ever once thought "Wow, what a great sentence" or "What a great paragraph" and have re-read a sentence or paragraph for the pleasure of it. But, I have had to re-read many sentences or paragraphs because I realized that I suddenly had no idea what the hell was going on anymore.

On the other hand, when taken in bulk, sections of Erikson's books can be very satisfying. There have been one or two occasions where I've thought, "Wow, those last 200 pages were great!" even though any individual sentence or paragraph would have given me brain cramps.

Forge on, intrepid reader!

Ken

[kosmoface]

I agree. I could have written this, Eliot.

But the author seems to be needlessly vague. I understand an author's attempts to be somewhat obscure. A little mystery and misdirection allows for a certain amount of functional tension which I personally believe is essential for a good story. But to deliberately withhold items of common knowledge, things the reader would certainly know about were we actual inhabitants of this imaginary world, appears to me, at least, to be somewhat of a cheap mechanism or trick just to heighten the enigma and the esoteric nature of the story.


Today I thought a lot about withholding information. That's what makes most stories spicy and I think it is a powerfool tool for a writer.

Leaving out information is powerful, because the writer can rely on the power of the imaginaion of his readers. Which most often is better than everything else he could have written. Furthermore, to say less and implying more one gets the illusion there's much more than there actually is.

There's this computer game called Football Manager (British game). The game designers are very, very vague about the underlying game mechanisms. This results in countless theories and discussions based on this vagueness, which makes the game for some players a piece of art with an almost philsophical underlying structure. In the end everything is much simpler, but humans want to believe.

Okay, I exaggerated a tad bit, but I also think this is a cheap trick to make yourself more interesting. You know, the mysterious guy or gal from your school and when you get to know them you realize they were just shy.

In the end I miss a certain flair in his writing style. I spotted glimpses of it, there's potential - but unused, because the plot is like a mad ape on Eriksons shoulders pressing him on and on.

Regarding 'flair'. For example what I liked about Abercrombies books was that he really tried to differ his writing style for each protagonist in his First Law trilogy and the people had furthermore a different duct when they were speaking. We maybe don't recognize this immediately, but it immerses us into the story. I call that flair.
In GOM I get (maybe) a brief explanation to somebody/thing and that's it, the rest I have to make up myself. Does he want to challenge me, is it laziness, style? I don't know. Okay, I think I said the same as you with different words.

And I have to admit I feel challenged and because of this the Malazan books will get their chance. When I read "A Game of Thrones" I wasn't overly impressed, besides the incredible Daenarys chapters and it was clear to me that Martin can write. I only found most characters dumb and unnerving. But I've read along and I loved every book afterwards, so I won't give Eriksons books up too soon.

o keep giving it a chance, much like you may have given coffee or beer a chance even though your first ever taste of it made you spit it out in surprise that something that smells so good can taste so bad .... at first

I like the analogy. :)

But, I have had to re-read many sentences or paragraphs because I realized that I suddenly had no idea what the hell was going on anymore.

This pretty much sums up my experience so far.

Forge on, intrepid reader!

Aye :) I'm too curious where all the fuzz comes from.