Tales from the Malazan Book of the Fallen

Remove all ads!

Yeah, there is definitely a very blurry line between good and evil. For me, Gardens of the Moon was by far the most confusing of the books I have read so far. A lot more seems to 'fall into place' in the others.

Just past halfway in 'House of Chains'. I have to say that the confusion level skyrockets when ever a creature beginning with 'T' shows up (i.e. T'lan anything or Tiste anything) as they seem to be on a completely different wavelength to anyone else.

 

It isnt as much justice as it is convergance that is the underlying theme of the books Chandos and which keeps the "little guy" somewhat safe. Convergance, that power draws power, if ascendant/god X does this here then he is bound to draw attention to himself. This phenomena multiplies on all levels. I read an interview with Erikson on the topic. The reason the ascendants and gods are afraid of mortals is because they can be killed and hurt by mortals as easily as by anyone else, easier than most. Most gods and ascendants are former mortals and there appear to be some "rule" that when a very powerful being frolics with mortals and intefers, hanging around in the normal dimension they are extremely vulnearable and can easily be killed. Might take an army but it can be done.

 

It also seems that the gods are vulnerable to mortals in the same way as they are in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, in that there are a horde of minor gods who can be de-powered or vanish if people stop believing in them (and vice versa, some can become more powerful if mortals worship them the right way).

 

I see what you mean Joacqin, and I'm corrected on the Justice/convergence issue. But I would ask you to consider just a few things:

When writers comment on their own work it can be a good starting place, but not the real deal. As a student of literature I drew on many sources to analyze and evaluate a text. Often there are aspects of a work that a writer is not even aware of.

Also, consider that the reader brings something to the work as well. A reader has to be careful not to project too much of himself, as well as his own sensibilities into a work, but like any other art form, the reader evaluates the work within his own experience, and not only with his experience with other, similar works, but with how art functions in his/her own reality. There is an interaction between the reality of the work, as crafted by the author, and what the reader expects in that reality (I know some of this may seem a bit silly to you, but I ask you to bear with me just a bit).

Let me throw out a line - Gardens of the Moon, p. 292:

"An old soldier had come to her [Tattersail] the day after the slaughter at Mouse Quarter. Old, nameless, a veteran sent to convince the sorceress that she was still needed. She well remembered his words. "Should you ever outrun the guilt of your past, Sorceress, you will outrun your soul. When it finds you again, it will kill you."

That's a pretty good definition of Justice, IMO. Of course, we both know that Tattersail is being manipulated by the empire, yet we see that Tattersail has never "outrun" her own guilt. Her guilt has, in fact, shaped her in some way, and prevents her from being completely manipulated by the empire. This kind of interplay is, for me, the real "juice" in literature. One does not find this kind of interplay in George Martin. And for me, that is what separates them as writers, and why I like Erikson so much better. Erikson's work is sprinkled with this kind of stuff.

Now, I admit that I'm not very far into the book yet. But I am hopeful that Erickson is inculding such lines as a foreshadowing of the interplay of his themes, which he should be developing more fully as the story unfolds. Otherwise, I will be sorely disappointed.

 

Hmmm, this is hard for me to comment on, Chandos, because:

a) I don't want to spoil anything for you, but really it's more because:
b) I didn't full understand what you said (I'm a simple person)
c) I understand even less about what Erikson is going on about in his books.

About the only thing I understand from that quote are the words "old soldier". From that, I can confirm that most of the best and most memorable characters in these books are old soldiers. I suspect, that in addition to his archaeological knowledge, that Erikson has had some association with the lower ranks of the military as he spends a lot of time looking at the world through the eyes of recruits and corporals.

 

You are not as simple as you think HB. That's an excellent point. Why would the empire send a nameless, anonymous, old man to Tattersail? rather than someone of far more importance? As you point out, it could be because someone of that nature, would have far more credibility, than someone of higher rank - greater import - within the empire. But this is only speculation on my part, since I am not as advanced into the story as you are. Nevertheless, Tattersail has "well remembered" what the old soldier had said.

 

Potential SPOILER House of Chains question:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Why is it so inevitable and unavoidable that Karsa and Icarium will fight?
*
*
*
*
End potential SPOILER

 

Chandos, my point was not from a literary theory perspective (I am not as familiar with reader response, deconstructive, new criticism, new historicism etc as you are but I am familiar with them) or from the interview with Erikson but from the fact that I have read all the books in the series which have been released.

One thing I can say which really shouldnt be a spoiler unless you are really really really smart. The empire tend to deploy a "reversed" hierarchy, ie putting the most competent and trusted people as close to the grassroot level as possible.

@HB because Karsa is a bastard with an anger management problem. Icarium is not a bastard but he has an even bigger anger management problem.

 

Joacquin - but why did they have to attack each other like that when they don't necessarily go around attacking everybody else?

 

I dont remember it in too much detail, first off, they never get very far in their fighting before Mappo breaks it up iirc? Otherwise I just think it is the challenge, Karsa meets a legendary figure and he just has to compare himself to him and Icarium wants to put the little newcomer on his place. This is just my personal interpretation though.

 

Bah, if I wasn't confused enough before, I now seem to be continually running into characters who have changed their names. There are an astonishing number of characters who have more than one name and it's really not helping.

 

I just picked up a copy of Deadhouse Gates, but have not started it yet. Since I finished Gardens of the Moon, I've putting off reading Gates, because I've heard that it does not have any of the characters from Gardens - that it goes off in a different direction. I was wondering, would it be better to read Memories of Ice before reading Deadhouse Gates? Altough I have not been able to find Memories of Ice in any book store.

 

Read them in order, they are all part of a greater tapestry and most of the characters are intertwined one way or another. I found Deadhouse Gates perhaps the heaviest of the books, especially one of the storylines which is outright Hobbesque in its bleakness at times.

I have said this before and at the beginning I saw it as a weakness in Erikson's writing but now I see it mroe as a strength that you have to work your way into each new novel almost as if you start a whole ner series. The characters, the setting and the plot is usually quite different but the further you read the more you notice how all these different branches cross each other and interact with each other. Stuff that happens to person X in book Y affects the outcome of plot Z in book W.

 

Agree with Joacquin as this is exactly the same advice he gave me a few months ago and I can confirm it is good advice.

Deadhouse Gates is indeed very heavy but very awesome.

Read them in order as I think that is how he intended them to be read. The criss-crossing timelines, geographies, and characters can only strengthen your mind power.

 

Harbourboy, Joacqin, Apeman, etc --- Here is what I moved from the Review thread of Gardens of the Moon:

Warning spoilers ahead - Please don't read unless you have already finished this book!!!! This is for discussion among those who have finished the story. For the rest of you, it will ruin the story....
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
In my mind, Paran, as the central character, is the most torn and sympathetic character in the story. He is caught in an astounding cross-current of loyalties: There is the Empire, Lorn, and Laseen, all of whom he owes his current rank and position to; then there is his family. We only get hint of this, but the foreshadowing of something larger, just waiting to happen, is introduced in the short scenes where Paran returns home to visit his sisters (this seems to be the main plot of Deadhouse Gates). Then there is his loyalty to the Bridgeburners. We know, as well as Paran does, that the Empire is setting them up and about to betray them, but they are under his command, and he feels the responsibility of both command and a sort of respect and friendship with the individual members – we know how that plays out. Last but not least, there is the woman whom he is in love with – Tattersail, and indeed she is in love with him also.

Paran pursues Tattersail across the land from Pale, only to find she has been killed; he gets Toc the Younger killed in the process, swears absolute vengeance on Lorn, and forsakes his loyalty to the Empire. Then Lorn dies just about in his arms, a victim of Brood’s Crimson Guards; Paran carries her dead body back to the hideout of the Bridgeburners; then he alone buries her – the only one who cares enough for Lorn to see that she is given the human compassion in death which has been denied Lorn since she was orphaned by Tattersail and the Bridgeburners while still in her childhood. How’s that for pathos, and a tour de force of plot work? The ending, with Paran and Lorn, plays out as the most human and heart-wrenching part of the entire story, IMO.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

 

Man! I really need to read this book again. I have absolutely no memory of Paran being in this book. When he shows up again later in another book (not really a spoiler), I thought he was a new character. I must be going senile.

 

One of the main and ever present story lines in the entire series is the "Paran family chronicle". Book 1 introduces Paran, whom I too more or less saw as the main character if there was anyone, and we get to follow him. Deadhouse Gates introduces Felisien the youngest Paran daughter and her adventures. In book three we are back with Ganoes and in book four it is Tavore, the oldest daughter that plays a central part together with Felisin.

 

Oh man. Just started 'Midnight Tides' and I'm a bit worried because I looked in the Dramatis Personae at the front of the book and I don't recognise ANY of the characters. So it's all going to be new. I don't know how Erikson manages to keep track of so many characters in his books.

 

Midnight Tides is the funniest of the books and perhaps the most amusing. The antics of Tehol Beddict and Bugg are very entertaining.

Wasnt Trull Sengar in House of Chains as well? From what I understand Midnight Tides takes place at the same time as Gardens of the Moon or Deadhouse Gates.

 

I am about 15% of the way through Midnight Tides and I have to say this is easily the most confusing of the books. I have no idea who any of the characters are or what on earth is going on. I'm still a bit hazy as to what a Tiste Edur is and I have no idea what a Letherii is.

Have any of these books ever made it clear who humans are descended from? I get the feeling that he has told us but I've missed it somewhere.