Whats more confusing, Malazan Series or Prince of Nothing trilogy

D

Donteb84

Registered User
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
115
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...:)

Cheers,

Sfinx.
 
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 ;).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:)
 
Alchemist said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are not going to enjoy the Judging Eye I'm afraid...more gloom & misery there, and not a very interesting story to boot...

Cheers,

Sfinx.
 
Donteb84 said:
And the fact that its very gloomy,sad, and unhappy is only all the more appealing to me:)
Click to expand...
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!

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.
 
Sfinx said:
You are not going to enjoy the Judging Eye I'm afraid...more gloom & misery there, and not a very interesting story to boot...

Cheers,
Sfinx.
Click to expand...

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 :(
 
I like every character in PoN, so there you have it :D 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.
 
hawkeyye said:
Malazan is complex, not confusing. Pon is confusing, but not very complex.
Click to expand...

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.
 
molybdenum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Althax said:
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.
Click to expand...

PoN isn't exactly YA, is it? On topic, I'd read Bakker first, then start Malazan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top