You know what, I'd completely reverse this. Malazan is confusing, and that is completely on purpose by the authors. PoN is a much more complex, character based story, and really I didn't find anything confusing about it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeyye
Yes. Also I feel that as the series go on, Erikson's multi POV, multi plot juggling act increasingly descends into a chaotic mess. There are many fascinating pieces in the books, but they are much less than the sum of their parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by molybdenum
Which is more confusing?
Chronologically? The Malazan Books of the Fallen.
In any other way? Bakker.
I loved Kehlus in Bakker's books but I haven't gotten to the judging eye yet. Akka was pretty good except when he obsesses about his dilemas... which happens far too often. My biggest problem though is that there was so much sex in the books. It was (imho) pretty graphic in some scenes and really seemed unnecesary.
Based on characters and philosophy, Bakker is more complex. Based on plot Erickson is more complex.
PoN isn't exactly YA, is it? On topic, I'd read Bakker first, then start Malazan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Althax
True kirk, but it's just not my cup of tea to read stuff like that. If I'm worried or embarassed that my wife will see what I'm reading, I'm not totally comfortable reading it.
I don't find the Malazan books all that confusing. Of course there are issue with the books but the ride is always worth taking.
With the PoN books I also found them to be an easy read I just had a hard time with the characters as none of them had any redeeming qualities.
Both are decent it just depends on what you are in the mood for.