August 23rd, 2010, 05:11 PM
Whats more confusing, Malazan Series or Prince of Nothing trilogy
I am going to start a new book, and I heard that both are kinda confusing, and was going to go with whatever people around here think is the lesser confusing out of two. Any advice?
August 23rd, 2010, 06:26 PM
Malazan is a lot more confusing, but also a lot more fun. Not to say Bakker isn't good as well, just a lot grittier with a lot more philosophy.
August 23rd, 2010, 11:24 PM
I like to rock the party
Malazan is waaaaaay more confusing. At times this is a fun quality, it gives you that swept away feeling, and at other times, it can be no fun at all as something seemingly super important happens and you say to yourself: "what the hell just happened, and who the hell is that person it just happened to?"
I'd give Bakker's stuff the nod.
August 24th, 2010, 07:52 AM
Life's a riddle
Hmmmm...I very much prefer the Malazan over the Prince of Nothing series. BUT: Malazan is much more complex than Prince of Nothing. So, I'd have to recommend you to go with Bakker. Feels weird though...
August 24th, 2010, 12:05 PM
It depends upon what you mean by "confusing." In terms of story and plot structure then Malazan is a lot more confusing, at least at first. It took me about 150 pages to get into Gardens of the Moon and have a strong sense of what was going on--I've heard it takes some folks a book or two (why they keep reading, I don't know!). Prince of Nothing is more philosophical, especially from the main viewpoint character Drusus Achamian, so if you find that sort of thing confusing then I wouldn't go there. But the basic plot of Prince of Nothing is relatively straight forward, there are just a lot of subtleties and extended passages of philosophical angst and pathos .
August 24th, 2010, 12:53 PM
Malazan is by far the more confusing, mainly because it contradicts itself all the time, with later installments overwriting history again and again.
Bakker is not confusing at all, in any way. That is, if one can read and think at the same time, which I've always found to be a wonderful ability to have...
I'd go for Bakker. Unlike Erikson, he delivers on his promises. Also - finished .Always a big plus.
August 24th, 2010, 02:29 PM
Saturn Comes Back Around
Malazan is more confusing. It's also way, way, way longer (10 huge books, instead of 3 average sized books).
But, it's also much more enjoyable. I liked Prince of Nothing, but it's no Malazan.
August 24th, 2010, 03:04 PM
That depends. Had I only read books 1-5 of Malazan, I'd probably say the same. But considering the huge drop in quality after book 6, I'd say that Bakker was more enjoyable to me. Also, better written in terms of style.
August 24th, 2010, 03:11 PM
I enjoyed Malazan more, but I've only read the first three books so far. I liked the Prince of Nothing and plan on continuing it with the Judging Eye, but boy is it gloomy. By biggest beef with Bakker as a writer--and it is a significant one--is that none of his characters every experience joy, happiness, or humor...or at least very, very rarely. Everyone is miserable, except for Kellhus, and he's basically not a real person so he doesn't count. I really like Achamian but I wish Bakker would give him a break. Jeez.
August 25th, 2010, 01:32 AM
I decided that I am going to read Prince of Nothing. I would rather read multiple trilogy books, instead of a huge 10 book series that seems to always go down in quality. And the fact that its very gloomy,sad, and unhappy is only all the more appealing to me
August 25th, 2010, 01:50 AM
Life's a riddle
You are not going to enjoy the Judging Eye I'm afraid...more gloom & misery there, and not a very interesting story to boot...
Originally Posted by Alchemist
August 25th, 2010, 03:06 AM
Saturn Comes Back Around
Not only is Prince of Nothing gloomy, but a major problem some people have with it (including myself) is that nearly every character is extremely unlikeable. I mean, I actually hated nearly every character. Not hate as in "love to hate" (like when you can't wait for a villain to get what they deserve), but hate as in "I can't even stand reading about this character, I hate them so much". And these are the protagonists, not the villains!
Originally Posted by Donteb84
I only liked two characters (Achamian and Cnaiur), and some people don't even like them.
Otherwise, PoN is very well written (probably what I liked best about it) and raises interesting ideas.
August 25th, 2010, 08:15 AM
Malazan is complex, not confusing. Pon is confusing, but not very complex.
August 25th, 2010, 08:40 AM
Well I can enjoy a bit of gloom and misery but it has to be balanced with other things: humor, love, joy, wonder, etc. There is no balance with Bakker, it seems. I've wondered if the guy experiences any joy that isn't a quick flash in the pan and then inevitably doomed to misery. Poor guy
Originally Posted by Sfinx
August 25th, 2010, 09:28 AM
I like every character in PoN, so there you have it Different opinions abound. It's just that nobody in the series (apart from Kellhus, and he is... special) is in any way "heroic" or "cool", and people have a hard time liking them for that reason.
Btw, I challenge hawkeye to go through the entire ancient history of the Malazan world and try to make a consistent timeline. THEN you can tell me it's not confusing and simply "complex". For something to be "complex", it has to avoid contradiction.