Interview with Steven Erikson

We have been told that Kruppe comes entirely from you. Are there any characters which come entirely from ICE?

SE: Hmm, is this an issue of interest? Let's see. I could be wrong here and there. Cam was Whiskeyjack, Hedge, Trotts, Coll, Murillio, Turban Orr, Simtal, Vorcan, Draconus, Osserc, the Emperor, Dassem Ultor, Rhulad, Fear, Trull (different names for those three), Envy, Baruk, the Seguleh, Kallor, Prince K'azz, Cowl, all of the Crimson Guard with exceptions noted below, Leoman of the Flails, possibly Kalam, the Crippled God, the Queen of Dreams (second time round), and a number of others whom none of you have met yet.

In the context of those above, I was Fiddler, Mallet, Quick Ben, Kruppe, Rallick, Rake, Brood, Dancer/Cotillion; among the Crimson Guard, uhm, Fingers, Blues and Jorrick Sharplance, and a bunch of others.

These were game-created characters. Many others are entirely independent of our gaming, devised for novel/story purposes exclusively (Temper, Kiska, Paran, Crokus/Cutter, Icarium, Mappo, etc)

Where are all the mages? In Gardens of the Moon, it seems as though each army should have a cadre of High Mages, but by House of Chains, they're a scarcity. Dujek's Host was cut down to Tayschrenn after Tattersail's death, but Tattersail & Calot's earlier conversations implied the presence of more High - and presumably low - Mages. A minor point, but the Malazan Empire seems rather shorthanded in the powerful sorceror department, and I'm curious as to why.

SE: It is indeed short-handed when it comes to high mages, even middling ones. Consider it this way. There are squad level mages in the armies, plenty of them. Most are mediocre but some aren't. Those who aren't have seen with their own eyes the appalling attrition rate among 'noted' mages. Accordingly, they're keeping their heads low because they're not stupid. We touch more on the mage-situation (specifically with Tavore's army) in the next novel. As it stands, apart from Tayschrenn the only other High Mage is one you all know well. Bad times indeed for the empire.

If you were to read the Malazan books as an independent observer, how would you rate them compared to the other well-known fantasy series?

SE: Difficult for me to say. I guess they're different in some crucial ways, most of which have been discussed by fans at length. I probably play around with subtext a lot more than your run of the mill fantasy novel (at least those I've slogged through out of boredom or some similar reason); but the better ones out there do that as well. I was told, long ago, that the stranger the world you're writing about, the clearer and cleaner the language must be -- 'windexed language' as it used to be called (and maybe still is). But I found a way around that, by making certain characters players of language -- in dialogue and monologue, and with those I can let loose on the linguistic games, puns, etc I can play with self-consciousness and metaphor and deliberately twisted analogy and simile. Messing around with voice is one of things that has always interested me as a writer. Multiple points of view unleash that like the hounds of hell. Also allows for plenty of misdirection, which is even more fun. Of course, every bit of writing, every sentence, every paragraph should function to serve more than one purpose. If there's just one (advancing action) it should probably be short and precise; otherwise if it's establishing setting, or if it's dialogue/monologue/characterisation, it should carry more than one level of intent and communication. That's a rule I follow, any way. Maybe that's unusual among writers, but maybe not.

When R. Scott Bakker's The Darkness that Comes Before came out, your blurb proclaimed that something remarkable had begun. What are your thoughts on The Thousandfold Thought?

SE: It sits on my desk. I have a hard time reading quality fantasy when I'm trying to write the same. Needless to say, I have amassed quite a backlog.

Among active authors, you are without a doubt the one that "pimps" other people's works the most: Bakker, Kearney and now David Keck. What is so special about Keck's In the Eye of Heaven?

SE: First off, the notion of 'pimping' is bloody offensive. To date, I have officially provided quotations for six writers: Cam Esslemont, Paul Kearney, Scott Bakker, Tim Lebbon, David Keck and on James Barclay's latest. There is one unofficial salutation that I know of and that's for Glen Cook's latest (it was drawn from an interview I gave -- first I knew of it was when buying the novel at the local bookstore). Does that make me profligate? Not even close. From the beginning I made it plain that I would 'endorse' someone else's work when I enjoyed reading it. I have received other proofs (unsolicited for the most part) that I have not responded to, because the work in question did nothing for me. So, to spare us all from my going on with the first half of your question by verbally ripping your head off, let me proceed to the second one.

I have seen multiple versions of David's novel, including the very first draft when I was an external thesis advisor when David was taking a writing degree in England. With each successive version, I was witness to a burgeoning of craft and vision that ultimately produced one of the grittiest medieval-setting fantasy novels I've ever read. This is dark, dark fantasy. Claustrophobic and compelling at the same time. And since even now, months after reading the last version, it still sits in my head, it clearly made an impression. Hence, I provided a quote.