"I will go over this very quickly, because this video has gone longer than I had intended..." *looks at time* -> Hasn't reached the halfway point yet xD Don't change A.P
As a first-time reader (currently reading Reaper’s Gale), I agree. It has never been THAT complicated. I think a lot of the confusion (from first-time readers) stems from attempting to define a warren with little to no supplementary information. I believe this leads people to false understandings which might affect ability to further understand the story. Personally, I never attempted this and allowed Erikson to guide my understanding. It has been wonderful! I think the best explanation I have read is offered by Corlo in Midnight Tides (5 books in LOL) Love ur videos AP - I hope I don’t sound arrogant.
Hi Bennett, I love that explanation. It is short, direct, but again bereft of the surface level detail that a number of modern readers seem to expect the discussion of magic to entail. And those expectations are set by other genre texts and techniques, not the techniques that Erikson typically employs. Following along with the flow of the narrative and trusting that the general sense of things is enough to understand what is happening frees up the mind to take note of different patterns within the text that actually further illuminate what is happening, and suddenly those 'hunches' that we think are happening organically are actually reflections of subtextual information we are picking up.
@@ACriticalDragon Exactly! It seems the closest Erikson will ever come to giving us an "info dump" (has stayed true for nearly two books!). Cool point about taking noticing patterns - people must underestimate their subconscious abilities!
@@Yungshamgod If you listen to ICE discuss how him and SE ignored the rules of magic in the role playing framework they were using whenever they wanted cooler results, the idea of magic being more nebulous is almost a no-brainer. 😁
I’ve always assumed that, being Professor Fireballs, you CAN hold flame in your hand. 😁 The great thing about you not being done with Dust of Dreams is that, in the meantime, we get all these other awesome videos to watch. Once again, you’ve made a connection that casts light on Malazan for us. Brilliant video!
@@brush2canvas849 I enjoyed the insight that you can compare the Malazan writing style to the portrayal of the Warrens. In other words, “show, don’t tell” is much like the preservation of mystery around the “soft magic” system we have in Malazan, allowing the reader in both cases to be actively involved in the creation of the story in their mind as they use deduction and follow the connotations of words (and Warrens, which are like elemental magic). That’s my interpretation of what A.P. was saying, anyway.
@@PhilipChaseTheBestofFantasy Yes, that would be my understanding as well, but I find that underwhelming. That an author uses for elements of his text (we probably can find others than just the warrens) the same narrative strategies (show, don't tell) that are like a hall mark of his writing in general is hardly surprising. It's like someone looking at a painting of mine saying, oh, look she uses the same lighting effect or glazing technique that's used on the figures also on the trees. One must explain the other, they must be related. Well yes, after all they're part of the same creative system and have been created by the same person.
I never thought Malazan was difficult to understand. There are definitely parts in each book that I don't catch the deeper meaning, like the deck of Dragons readings. But I'm just willing to wait and find out the explanation in later books. I'm currently on Ch 4 of Dust of Dreams, so I'm sure everything I think I know is wrong somehow. I love the series and I decided after book 2 that I would reread it one day.
I hope that you are enjoying the books, and I am very glad that you didn't experience that feeling of frustration that you didn't understand. We often talk about reading against the text instead of trying to follow what the text is doing, and I know that can be a very frustrating experience for some readers.
Very interesting. I never thought warrens were hard to understand at all. Other things, yes, but not warrens. Re: the fisher girl, I don't remember if I picked up on it the first time I read it. I may have thought something odd was going on, but, really, at that point, the whole atmosphere is so mysterious. It's quite possible that when there was a second, more sinister act of possession immediately after, my brain decided to remember the second one and forget the first one. Thanks, brain! Also, I don't think I was prepared for how quickly fantasy elements would be put into play in Malazan. I would say in most fantasy (not all) you would first introduce you to the idea that possession is the type of thing that can happen in this universe, and then use that later when a specific character gets possessed. Erikson does both at the same time - he informs you that something exists and can happen in this world at the very moment that he uses it to advance the plot. I think the same thing is true with the repetition of curses. Most fantasy authors have some novel curses (Hood's balls! Light! Rust and ruin!) which they use to create a consistent tone and atmosphere for that world. Erikson is doing that here, but he also has a second purpose which is creating the symmetry between the old woman and the girl. Again, I don't think I was prepared to handle Erikson doing two things at once. It's definitely good writing, but, for me, it's the reason I need to reread. On the first pass, I might pick up on one of the things that Erikson is doing, but then on the second pass, I can notice the second thing. For instance, it's probably on the second (or later) read that you would notice the first thing the girl says to Rigga is "I'm sorry." Maybe on a third or fourth pass I pick up on something else.
I didn't want to point out the 'Sorry' aspect because I was trying to this as spoiler free as possible... which is pretty hard to do with scene one in chapter one. 😂 But you are right, if you are not prepared for the style, it can make understanding the material so much harder. And when you re-read, a lot of this information is suddenly very clear and overt.
@@ACriticalDragon Another thing I really like is how Erikson draws attention to the repetition of the "prod and pull." '“Prod and pull,” the fishergirl said quickly. 'Cotillion hesitated at her strange comment, then he shrugged. ' He's marking the comment for extra attention by having Cotillion pause to ponder it. It's like he's subtly stepping out as author and speaking directly to the reader to say that you should think about THIS comment more. I wish I had been more aware of that when I first read Malazan. Because I didn't know that Erikson was doing that, my curiosity stayed focused on the diagesis, a la "Why would Cotillion think that was strange?" Of course, there's no answer to that question. Cotillion wasn't there the first time the phrase was used by the old woman. Instead, the question should have been, "Why does the author want me to give that comment a second look? What's the significance of the repetition of the comment?" Or, more generally, is the author doing something "meta" or post-modern here that I should have noticed?
Great video! Even though I picked up on the old woman possessing the fisher girl on my first reading, it was more of a hunch on my part, and going back to it I am always so amazed how overt it actually was. And regarding warrens, very early on in the series I just decided to trust Eriksson and go along with everything, and so I have not given them much thought. To hear you describe them as the equivalent of elemental realms as found in D&D was a real eye opener. Very interesting how, when viewed in that light, they indeed seem simple.
Hi Torbjörn, I am glad that you enjoyed the video. It is maybe not surprising that many readers unconsciously pick up on the information without knowing how they got it, especially if they are unfamiliar with the techniques. Lots of readers have those 'I knew it.' or 'I had a hunch' moments without realising where all that information came from. That is why rereading is so important because you tend to relax more and also have not only a greater understanding of the context, but also a greater familiarity with the technique. So much becomes overtly obvious on a re-read (although there are still wonderful quirks and connections that take multiple reads to pick up on). But I firmly believe that the series is understandable and enjoyable on a first read. Given how well known the origins of the series are, I am always surprised when people don't make the connections to aspects of gaming in the world, but on the other hand, it allows me to make videos like this and pretend I am smart.
I love your close readings! I have three family members starting on Gardens that I'll be sharing this with. Your warrens explanation will get rid of some of their confusion and hopefully the analysis will encourage them to realllllly pay attention. Personally I struggled when I first tried reading Gardens, but I was barely 16 years old and still reading more simple YA fodder.
The surface information is more vivid second time round. A lot of us only see it then because we see where it leads. Your close reading really delves into the text though. Was fascinated by the spit. Great video.
Thanks Gareth. Re-reads make it easier as you have the context to more fully appreciate what is happening and therefore can pay more attention to the details. Sometimes when reading for the first time you ignore obvious information because you are reading on to find out what happens and are not paying attention to how you are being given the information.
This was such a great video breaking down the abstract nature of the Warren's and the magic we see in Malazan. Im only two books into the series but I've already see that I need to let go of this idea of understanding everything and just get lost in being lost (if that makes sense). I also agree that the writing format is similar to a short story format. He is very deliberate and it took me a while to get used to it. I am going to go into the third book with that in mind. Love your channel!
Hi Ercy, I have been enjoying the discussions you are having with everyone about your readthrough. It is great to hear from you. Going with the flow and letting my unconscious mind pick up on the details is exactly the strategy that I used when I first started reading Malazan. It took me a couple of attempts to read Gardens of the Moon because I kept trying to read it as a 'normal' fantasy novel, instead of reading it the way it was written. Thank you so much for watching the videos, I hope that you enjoy them. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts as you read through the series.
@@ACriticalDragon thank you! I've been having a great time just chatting with everyone! This series is super complex and It's great to have that comradery as we're going through the series. I've watched some of the Malazan content you have, but now that I'm reading the series, it is making so much more sense 😅 I'm definitely excited to keep going!
I think Malazan is only complicated for readers who've mainly read "standard" fantasy or YA (i'm thinking of WoT, B.Sanderson's work, HP, etc) before. For readers who've also read some other literairy genres (and indeed short stories) it doesn't seem that difficult 🤷♀️. The fact that i didn't understand completely what warrens are, and other things that we learn more about later on, just added to the fun for me.
Well that would have made my video a lot shorter. Why use a couple of sentences when I can ramble on for half an hour about something? But in all seriousness, experience of different genres, styles, time periods, and types of writing is the best way to improve comprehension. It is an education in different techniques and expectations, in different approaches to narrative structures and tension, and to different approaches to gratification and information reveal. But saying that is again another very short video. It is probably too short even for a TikTok.
I've read most of standard fantasy Terry pratchet,wot, Brandon, kingkiller, witcher etc. But when I picked up malazan, I had a nasty habit of speed reading due to wot(which honesty requires speed reading because of how descriptive the author got sometimes). And I couldn't understand anything in malazan. I felt like I was learning a new language. So can you give some recommendations for non-standard fantasy books?
If you want to better understand and experience the technique, it is usually better to try to read outside the genre. But having a look at some Science Fiction and Fantasy short story collections, or even reading some classics and having a look at literary analysis videos that focus on those classics is a great way to become more familiar with the techniques.
I haven’t read a lot of books. Malazan is one of the few series that I do read. I never had difficulty understanding. But I do take my sweet time reading these (it has taken me 3 months to get half way through Midnight Tides).
The warrens give off alchemy vibes, from FMA. You can use power from them, but there is always a reciprocal effect, when you take power out of the warren realm, the warrens will take something back in return from the real/concrete world. It helps convey the themes of karma that run throughout the story.
A fantastic video! I’m only recently finding out that Warrens are a common thing people get hung up on. Or confused about. I had no idea, and never even considered it a mystery of the series. I’m not boasting or anything. It seems like such a random aspect of Malazan to hit a wall on.
It is sometimes strange to encounter things that we personally think are straightforward and yet other people find incomprehensible, and vice versa. This is one of those things that just shows how understanding of a text is so reader dependant and not necessarily the text itself.
I am roughly a third of the way through DG, my first read through, and I very much agree that it is not as complicated as people think. I am enjoying unravelling the mystery of Warrens and I also am understanding them as a sort of ‘realm’ that only certain people can access. Why and how they can do this I don’t know yet, but that is not a negative. Thus far, Erikson has always given me enough information to understand and, more importantly, enjoy the story. I’m relatively new to your channel AP, loving the videos!
This book series was a learning moment for me. I had to learn to accept not knowing how the world works. Now i really struggle with books or any kind of story that teaches you the "rules" of their world from the very begining.
It is interesting how our tastes change the more we experience. But even then, there are lots of books that I enjoy that are far more straightforward and direct in their storytelling, and I enjoy them for what they are doing. It would be a very stale genre if all the books were written in the same style and told the same stories. But there are definitely times when I am more in the mood for something I can sink my teeth into and other times when I want something funny, or something entertaining, or something that is all about action. Variety is the spice of life.
Hi AP. Great video AP. I think that if one only reads modern fantasy, then one is lacking the tools to enjoy Malazan. That said, if one perseveres, I think Malazan will teach those skills. On a side note, I went to the used bookstore and scored the first 6 Janny Wurts books. I'm 100 pages into the Curse of the Mistwraith and I'm really enjoying it. For me her prose is fun to read. Can't wait for your thoughts. Take care AP.
" it isn't as complicated as you think" Excuuuse me!? I want my money back! I was assured if I read this series I could passive-aggressively claim intellectual superiority! ( if it wasn't obvious, \s )
Fascinating analysis of those two paasages of text. Even though it all sliped my attention the first time reading Gardens of the Moon, I got it during the second read but only while I had the information of the end of the arc about the possesion. Thanks for all this brilliant work you do to educate us in reading narrative and texts differently.
Thanks for this video. I was thinking of the warrens in much the same way, as separate ‘planes’ or dimensions that practitioners can draw different types of power from. What made me think of them as places was the scene in Gardens of the Moon where Adjunct Lorn uses a Warren to travel with Ganoes. I’ve only read Gardens, I’m sure I will pick up more as I move on to the next book.
Though I have yet to start the series, my style of reading is geared to looking under the surface and trying to pick up on any “clue” like tidbits like the repetition you spoke of. I look forward to reading this at the end of the year as I am trying to “clean up” my TBR. I am glad that I have your videos to reference.
I thought I was the same way, about picking up on clues and analyzing things. But then I started Malazan and my life is a lie. It so dense. I am 4 books in and it’s been a wild ride. I’m just holding on enjoying the ride lol! I hope you enjoy your reading of it. I’m sure Everyone will take something unique from the story.
@@ACriticalDragon I am reading House of Chains now and I am having a blast. The first thing I thought of when I came across my first warren in Gardens was that episode of the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon "The Dragons Graveyard" were the kids travel to Tiamat's "realm" to fight Venger because their weapons true source of power comes from the graveyard. I do have to say that having played D&D as a child has helped me appreciate this series especially the Deck of Dragons and all the warrens associated with it. Ganoes may be my favorite character at this point.
This was wonderful! I really like this take on the warrens and how you can read them, very interesting. I hope I haven't just missed or forgotten about a video like this, but I would love a discussion on Burn and perhaps the Mhybe, and the symbolism of the world literally or figuratively being a goddess. I make some connections (mother earth, gaia), but I've always had a feeling that there is something there that I'm not aware of, and the whole concept is fascinating.
@@ACriticalDragon Sorry, I thought I might have heard about it or seen a video about it somewhere, but of course what I remembered must have been that I had mentioned it before. You certainly don't have to do that, I'm very happy whatever videos you make. :)
Wow, this is eye-opening. I have read GotM and enjoyed it, but I missed this repetition in this scene (and elsewhere if it occurs). Now that you bring it up it really reminds me of Tolstoy (who is my favorite author). He deliberately used repetition in a similar way, though frequently translators smooth it out for "better" prose. Very interesting.
Tbh at first with the analysis of spit and spat in the first chapter that was being looked at, I thought you were over analyzing 😅😅 but then I thought about Erikson and Malazan and realized you were exactly right
How about the choice of the word "warren" instead of the word "realm"? It implies something not easily navigable or maze-like whereas realm is quite different. Also, even in the hardest of magic "systems", the magic itself is never explained. There are no units of measurement so it still remains ephemeral and indistinct no matter its replicability and the structures placed around it by the writer. I like that SE and ICE left other types of magic as well, warrens don't override everything, they just exist alongside everything else.
That is a great point, and it goes to those connotative meanings that combine a structure that can appear labyrinthine and chaotic, but also knowable and traversable. The back and forth between different levels of meaning and understanding is one of the key aspects of 'understanding' the bigger pictures and constructing meaning over time as the information is slowly mapped.
I feel like as I was reading the first book, I had a very basic idea of what a warren was... but if you asked me to explain it I don't think I would have done a good job, haha! I'll be getting back to Malazan soon, just needed a break before Reaper's Gale. Great video!
As the old cliché goes, journey before destination. Some books are to be devoured, some are to be savoured, and some are to be hurled across the room with great force. But every reader gets to decide which book falls into which category. Thanks for watching, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Reaper's Gale.
I think the most confusing sections to do with warrens are those which multiple warrens are involved and the transitions are deliberately ambiguous, such as the sequence involving the Silanda in DG or basically every time the Nascent is mentioned. Also as the series continues the metaphysical foundation of the warrens and the relationship to holds enter extremely abstract territory. Personally I just go with 'warrens are vibes' so I can sit back and enjoy the ride.
I always felt the..concept that Erickson was trying to work out was: what happens to things we pay and put our attention to. How those things effect us back. An exploration of Covenant and the painful responsibilities from both parties. And the very very hyper-thick concept of chance/gaming (not as table top) but as narrative and riding that in the way the Deck of Dragons expresses itself. Living in the deep tension of racial trauma, footprints of civilizations…its not ‘just’ fantasy. You can read it as such, absolutely. But you can travel far beyond that. Erickson’s brilliance is actually terrifying in scope.
Thanks for another great video. But not complicated? I've enjoyed Malazan without feeling things were too complicated, but then you go ahead and tell me that the "easy way to read" involves things like: - Make sure to pick up that a word used in a sentence ("on a spit") also has a connotation to the present tense of the previous use of "spat" - Making sure that I figure out the structure and concepts involved - Correlate the actual surface level with structural and conceptual links Not sure I would call that "not complicated" 😂 Luckily, I found I could enjoy these books without all this complicated stuff (and as such, yeah you can read them without it being too complicated). However, your videos (and many other peoples videos) has helped me pick up on a lot of good stuff in these books that I didn't get on my first read, and I would say some of this does get rather complicated to my mind. At least complicated enough for me to enjoy them more and more (I like things being a bit complicated 🤓).
hahahaha, I know it seems complicated, because explaining it is complicated, but your brain actually picks up on all these things as you read, and as you become more aware of the techniques you can see it happening on the page. It is like learning to drive. At first it can seem complicated because you are consciously trying to keep track of everything, but then you learn to do it automatically. So the more you are exposed to these sorts of techniques the more you unconsciously assimilate the information without actively having to try to pick everything apart. I am really pleased to hear that you have enjoyed the videos and that they have helped you get more from the books.
So basically, you are saying that really I just need to pass my reading license test, and then everything gets easy? 🤣 Good thing there are such great teachers on youtube! (And hopefully learning to read from youtube is less of a problem than learning to drive from youtube would be...)
@@ACriticalDragon really? Isn't there a pause button in the car so I can check the details before driving onwards? Might have to rethink my driving lessons approach.
my greatest confusion was that I read the first 2 books in dutch and then found out there were a few more in english :D so had to start the whole series again LOL..no that was not as fun as it sounds at first but it's now one my fav fantasy series, just don't overthink stuff...and enjoy the ride ;)
What's funny is that it was actually the Dying Earth magic system that gave rise to DnD magic systems. That was the first book that I know of that had a hard rule system (I'm glad to be corrected but I don't know of an earlier book, the first book was written in 1950). The characters have to memorize spells from their books/scrolls, can only memorize a certain number of spells at a time, and when spells are cast there is a verbal, somantic, and sometimes material component involved. Gygax made the source of divine magic different but applied the same rules for clerics that he came up with for wizards. Reading Malazan is pretty easy if you have an RPG background (especially if you started out playing 1e DnD). Some people complain about how some warrens can be physically accessed and some can't, but that is easily explained if you realize that the story is told from the viewpoint of only certain beings, there are most likely beings that can enter Mockra but the story was never told from the viewpoint of any being that could enter it. One of the best comments from Erikson was something to the effect of "if you think you understand what is really going on, you don't". If you are the type of person that has to understand everything then Malazan is not for you 🙂
Appendix N lists a lot of the inspirations, and Vance's work is routinely overlooked. Mazirian the Magician is especially noticeable as an influence given the names of the spells used.
@@ACriticalDragon As a kid I was adamant that Vance must have copied his ideas from DnD, using the reprint date of the book as the reasoning, it was reprinted AFTER the print date in my DMG, so obviously they changed it to, right? Kids are dumb 😁
Good info. While I enjoyed the Malazan story, I found Erikson's writing style to be an utterly massive chore - I would not have finished it without setting a hard and fast rule for myself that "I'll read one Malazan chapter a day before I'm allowed to read anything else - not counting Prologue or Epilogue" (I doubled / tripled up on those as necessary, so I went from Chapter 24 to Chapter 1 the next day) around Midnight Tides, and I often joke that I'd have enjoyed it much more if it were written by zombie Robert Jordan. I understand that Erikson wants to make people think, but reading is one of the things I do to relax after all the stuff I have to do to live and not let the house fall apart, so I don't really want it to feel like work. I enjoy "making the reader think" in a mystery sense. A good example would be what the hell is going on with "the man in the cell" in the Lightbringer series by Brent Weeks.
The cat warren is outside.. no inside... no outside... no inside... it is on the bookcase... no under the bed... no on the laptop... nope it is outside again.
The problem is he doesnt give explination, he drops you in and expects you to know. As an INSANE fan, i have read the main series and all the Malazan works, from return of the crimson guard to forge of darkness. Im basically a Thalmurturgic expert :D
I never thought of that as a problem, but again, it is a common technique that is used more frequently in other genres. I tend to rely on comments from people letting me know other aspects they want discussed as I sometimes don't realise that while I am familiar with something, other people are not.
Erikson also gives you enough time to figure something out for yourself before he explains it to you, Warrens being a classic example. In the latter half of the series, you get some explicit postulations by some of the characters on the nature of Warrens (most notably, a conversation between Quick Ben and Bottle iirc), but before that, he gives you clues to get an idea for what they are for yourslf. Similarly with Holds, where initially, you're given clues, until eventually, a character just ups and tell you more or less what they are. Also, this is one of the places where the comparison with scifi comes in, imho, where you have a system that is used quite extensively in society, but most people, including the ones who use it, wont be able to explain exactly how it works. Which, the comparison of Malazan with scifi, I dont think, is so much so that it is scifi, but that in some ways it is written like a scifi book more so than a modern fantasy one.
That is a great point. Erikson tends to hold faithfully to character perspective and therefore there is less (not none) narrative intrusion to explain or contextualise the world by the narrator. This is not a particularly common technique in Epic Fantasy, but it is fairly common in Literary Fiction and short story writing.
He does the same thing with the overall story. Nothing even starts to get mildly pieced together until the end of The Bonehunters, and even then it's just a small taste of what's going on. A small nugget of "Look, this really DOES tie together and make sense, just follow along." from Erikson... Almost just to reassure the reader that it isn't all for nothing.
I spent half of my first read of the first couple of books assuming "oh, this is like planar magic in dnd" and waiting for that assumption to get blown out of the water somewhere... kinda never was. I had a lot of *other* issues with my first read that led to it being a tough time (most that you cover here. much more a mentality with how you engage the text.) but... I dunno, always amusing to me it's always used as an example when that's one of the simpler things going on.
Hi Zan, it is sometimes fascinating how some people can grasp some concepts as easily as breathing, or see twists as if they were clear, when I have to struggle to wrap my head around them, and then vice versa. We all bring our own experiences, knowledge, and understanding to texts.
@@ACriticalDragon yeah! And to the real point though, the series just isn't about that recognition, its deeper than that. So recognizing the roots or not... Doesn't matter much.
I very much enjoyed the video, but may I point out that only a little bit of it was about hte warrens? :P I remember the first time I heard Erikson talk about short story writing and what it implies. That was when I realized that this style of writing fits like a glove on my way of making sense of a text. It is a skill and not a common one, I would say. And Erikson employs it spectacularly. The scene you presented is the one that had me hooked on Malazan. After reading this scene I knew I wouldn't stop until I read all of them, come what may. I remember noticing the spitting in Rigga, then the candles hinting at necromancy, then again the spitting in Sorry, the odd voice and then the "prod and pull" in Sorry, which hadn't caught my attention the first time in Rigga, but mirrorred it spoke volumes. And then wondering how does it all fit. Clearly Sorry was possessed by Rigga. And she was also clearly possessed by Cotillion. So what happened there? How could the two inhabit the same body and not fight each other over control of it? But it was the way that the information was hidden in the choice of words that had me so excited. It felt like... an adult way of writing, for lack of a better word. It felt like I was not treated like a child who needs to know everything right away and who has to figure out what is happening in this magic world the same as I need to figure out what is happening in this, real world. I pay attention to words and I welcomed the challenge. And I suppose there is something to be said about delayed gratification as well. That's a joy we are all beginning to forget. That's another technique that Erikson uses very well, from not being able to understand everything right away unless you pay a lot of attention to each and every word and link them with what you heard before. Like the way I kept having a feeling that the Whirlwind and Dryjhna had something to do with the T'lan Imass during my first read. There was all this talk about futility and Tool had made it plenty obvious that futility is linked to the T'lan Imass. I couldn't tell how this goddess was linked to it, but I could tell there was a link. So when I found the resolution to that question in House of Chains it felt like I had won a trophy :))) And that's another kind of delayed gratification, where you do get your answers, but not only from linking the words, but by waiting until the link is almost out of your memory to get the answer to it. This is the best explanation I ever saw of why reading the Malazan Book of the Fallen can feel difficult. And I do believe that only an applied text analysis could have done it justice. And you did it justice perfectly.
Hi Claudia, this is one of the reasons why Gardens is one of my favourite books. When I noticed how carefully the prose was constructed it was eye opening and made me sit up and take notice. It changed how I was thinking about the book, and that made a huge difference. I think I got up to just past the dinner scene, stopped, and restarted with the new frame of reference in mind.
What I dont understand is how Kurald Galain turned from just a normal realm (planet?) inhabited by the Tiste Andii un the Kharkhanas books, to their source of power in Gardens of the Moon and on. What happened to the planet and that universe?
Thanks for a great video. It makes a lot of sense why Malazan never clicked for me now. I don’t think the writing style worked for me, even though I loved a lot of the ideas presented within.
I am sorry that you never enjoyed the style. On the upside, the genre is so rich and diverse that there are always other books out there. SO I hope the next book or series you pick up is perfect for you.
@@ACriticalDragon Me too, because I really liked a lot of the ideas in Malazan, but it was seriously the writing that turned me off. And watching your video I get it. It's just too concentrated a style of writing for me to easily submerge myself in the world. Very impressive writing, but I think there's a reason why it's usually better suited for short stories, at least to me. Any way - keep up the good work, I really appriciate someone treating fantasy as a serious literary genre.
Do you feel like there is an excessive D&Dfication of magic in modern epic fantasy literature? What I mean is that most of the fantasy series today tries to systemise magic (use "rules" what can be cast and what cannot; categorise spells by their nature, for example "necromantic magic" or "magic of elemental powers" etc.; a specific requirements have to be met by a character in order to use said magic and the list goes on. What we get, most of the time, looks like a periodic table of spells or some tabletop role-playing game spell sheet. The mystical and outer-wordly aspect of magic is almost completely gone. It shouldn't follow a formula or have limits. The magic is inherently magical and does not need a logical explanation (Tolkien, Robert E. Howard or Lovecraft didn't have "magic system", it just was what it was, a phenomena beyond our comprehension). Anyway, I know it is a long discussion, but just wanted to know your thoughts. Thanks.
I am not sure if it is excessive, but I certainly think that RPGs and their computer game descendants have been highly influential and created expectations in some of the subgenres about how things 'should' be done. Then, if readers have not read or experienced other approaches they can feel dissatisfied or that the author is doing things wrong, instead of an understanding that it is a different technique that is not only well established in the fantasy tradition, but is an equally valid approach. Genres go through cycles of techniques, styles, tones, and approaches, in which some aspects rise to prominence and dominate then fade away or are assimilated into new approaches. It is all part of the evolution and lifecycle of a genre. But certainly, systemised magic is the ascendant form at present, until something else replaces it. It may be a return to the numinous.
@@FirefulXD Thanks, I did my PhD on the subject. It is really interesting how the mechanics of gaming, and the mathematical modelling of computer game variants, significantly impacted the genre.
I'll be the contrarian in your comments 😆. I have to strongly disagree that it isn't difficult to read. I think the fact that you point out that it is very far outside of the normal structure/format of storytelling (not just fantasy, but storytelling methods specifically) is precisely what *makes* it difficult for many readers. To your point - it's not that it's beyond their capacity to understand, but anything that takes you outside your comfort zone is inherently more difficult. An astrophysicist may not find discussions about gravity complex; a farmer may. I appreciate that you go into the detail you do in explaining things, and I do think it's very helpful 😃I wish I had some of this information when I had first started the series. Right now, I am about 3/4 of the way through Midnight Tides, and my journey with this series has been quite the ride. I did not care much for Gardens of the Moon at all, I enjoyed Deadhouse Gates much more, particularly noting how much Erikson's writing had improved between the two, owing to a variety of factors, not the least of which was the time between publication for the first and second novels in the series. Memories of Ice sold me on the series, though I nearly DNF'd it about 1/3 of the way through. Once we hit Capustan, I was hooked, and I have pretty much loved everything since. I loved the rest of that book, I absolutely adored House of Chains, and I am loving Midnight Tides. I think I hit the point where I started to understand how Erikson was telling his story, and that did make it more enjoyable. But, not being someone that rereads books often, I resent a bit that I couldn't have had some of the insights I do now earlier in the series, so that I might have actually been able to appreciate those parts more. And just to be clear, I don't think it's less complex now than it was before. There are still moments where I have absolutely no idea what's going on. But rather than struggling against those moments and feeling frustrated like I did in the first two books, I've learned to just accept that, maybe jot down a few notes so I can try and connect things back to those events later, and then move on. Erikson gives you enough - and you learn enough - as you continue to be able to piece things together, and I have come to enjoy that a lot. But all that said, I would still respectfully disagree that Malazan isn't difficult. I think the fact that you made this video and elaborated on a way of reading it that makes it less difficult is sort of a confirmation of that, rather than a contradiction! That said, I really appreciate your perspective and again I want to thank you for making this video!
I completely understand your points, Thank you for taking the time to explain them so clearly. The thing is, when you have experience with other forms of storytelling Malazan's approach and structure is not that noteworthy. Histories and pseudohistories,modernist and postmodernism fiction,science fiction and more all use these techniques. The fact that it is not common in fantasy is what I think people struggle with, but that is the nature of the modern genre. So I wouldn't agree that the techniques are uncommon in storytelling, but I would agree that many modern readers are far less aware of them.
@@ACriticalDragon I hear you! And again I appreciate that thought. Another way I might phrase my feelings is: you're very well read, in many, many genres, and so as you said, this was more approachable to you because of your familiarity with those concepts and the approach Erikson took. For me, when I think about something being "difficult", I think about its accessibility for people that might not be coming into it with that prior knowledge. So maybe it's just the definition of "difficult" that we don't quite agree on. But happily, one thing we *can* agree on is that it's a wonderful series. I am glad I stuck it out through my early frustrations, because it's quickly become a favorite. Have you heard about the new hardcover prints that The Broken Binding is putting out in 2024?
This explanation, to continue, actually would discourage people from reading this series. I get what he's saying but lots of people don't want a literary degree to read a fantasy series. Nor have the training and time to do the kind of analysis he suggests you need to read and appreciate Erikson.
Amazing video (even though I stopped it in the middle to avoid anything spoilery ^^)! I have a simple question though and would appreciate if the answer wouldn't contain spoilers if that's possible: are the places within warrens as real as the normal physical world? Or rather, do they exist in the same plane/dimension/reality as the main Malazan world?
There aren't any spoilers here past Chapter One, it is literally just the opening scene of Chapter 1. As to the warrens, it depends on what you mean. The Warrens aren't another country or continent, so they are not on the same physical plane of existence, but they are 'real', they can be visited.
@@ACriticalDragon Thank you for reply! (sorry, I just wanted to be sure that there are no spoilers) Im currently mid book 3 and yes, that much I understand. My initial idea of the warrens was that they are like layers in a Photoshop file. That they are not different worlds, but rather worlds that sort of 'overlap' the main world. It's such a fascinating concept to me!
I am a good reader but this guy's analysis was something I never noticed. Over analysis and if this is Erikson's method it's what actually slows the reading down and makes it more complex, Probably why lot's of people give up because who wants to be always so attentive to details?
Some people enjoy this kind of writing. That is the beauty of literature, even within a genre, the breadth and scope of narrative that appeals to lots of different people.
Is it OK for me to watch this considering I've only just read the prologue and Chapter 1 of GotM? I want no spoilers at all. P.s. I don't actually feel confused. I've accepted that there are things I'm not going to understand for now, but other than that, I'm having no issue following the story/characters and I'm LOVING it so far. I'm so hooked.
@@ACriticalDragon Thank you. I'll give it a watch. Also, the video you did for the opening pragraph of the Prologue was helpful because I didn't know what a vane was, so I kept rereading that paragraph thinking that it was describing a mutilated body on a pike, but then thinking that wasn't quite right. Once you said weathervane, it all clicked for me and got the symbolism immediately.
Having played and playtested Rolemaster, warrens as realms was an easy mental conversion. The only real revision was a warren as a place but thinking of elemental planes was an easy fix. Reading this with only a DnD background, or no rpg, might have been more confusing. But even in this opening scene, non-warren magic has also been introduced. Or at least not explicitly warren related. But that is a longer discussion with more books to reference. Insert Dr. Fantasy's plug for ICE and Karkanas... Thus circles back to why people love and hate the series, which are often the same reason. Some want structure of how things work, who to root for and who to hate, with a few exceptions, laid out. This is the wrong series for that mindset. And for the second part of the video, perhaps it should be titled 'how ro reread....'. Or should we just assume that you picked up, or will at least say you picked up, the possession and various other reveals the first time?
Hi Eric, familiarity with the techniques means that you pick up on it, but you might not know why you picked up on it, on a reread you can more easily pinpoint how you picked up on it because you know what to expect. That is why things seem so obvious the second time around. But I am not trying to imply I am super smart when I say that yes I picked up on this the first time I read it, but I would have been harder pressed to explain how I picked up on it when I first read it... if that makes sense. If you had stopped me on my first read of Gardens at the end of Chapter one I would have said that I am fairly sure that X happened, Y is because of, Z is... but there would still be some elements of doubt. Skimming back through it again after that first time I spotted some of the specific elements that made me think those things. So the 'reveal' at the end with Sorry was not a surprise, and all the way through I was aware of who she was. I did however keep wondering as I was reading where Rigga was in Sorry. So that element was a reveal and it was all the more satisfying because it answered one of the questions that had been hovering in the back of my head the whole time.
@@FelineElaj Pen and paper but has been out of print for a while. Iron Crown Enterprises produced it. They so produced MERP, Middle Earth Role Playing, which had some amazing supplements. Until Tolkein Enterprises drove them out of business but that is another issue.
Anyone saying there is anything difficult to understand in tye Malazan series never read the Prince of Nothing trilogy (The Darkness that Comes Before, Warrior Prophet and Thousandfold Thought. :-D
I disagree with the whole it not being that complicated. Judging from this video and the brilliant analysis I just watched, it's pretty damn complicated. I'm going to be starting a re-read soon and now I feel like I need an English degree to get some of this stuff. Like how the girl and old lady were linked and how Erikson crafts that relationship in the text. Although I understood what was happening when I read it, I most certainly did not pick up on the repetition, physical contact and other clues you talk about. And this is just one TINY scene. There are 10 books averaging 700+ pages each not counting Kharkanas. How in the world am I supposed to pick up on all these nuances? 😭
But you understood 'what' was being communicated, so it is not complicated in that sense. Understanding how Erikson achieved that communication is more complicated, but that is rarely necessary for understanding the book. It is a bit like a magic trick. You can follow the trick, understand the outcome and have fun. But trying to explain how the magician did it, that becomes complicated. You might not have been able to explain how Erikson used different techniques to make you understand what was happening, but you understood it. I think that some people are put off reading Malazan because they hear it is 'complicated', and yet when we read we know what is happening even when it is not being directly told to us, our brains pick up the information and the inferences, the implications, the subtexts, the direct and indirect information. Characters are introduced and we dislike them even though we don't know why we dislike them, or we like them but don't know why. The important part for a reader is that you understand what the author is communicating, not that you understand how the author communicated it. If that makes sense.
@@ACriticalDragon Touche, you make a good point. Who knows maybe I figured this stuff out subconsciously somehow. It makes sense that it's more important that I understand what the author is communicating. But it kind of begs the question that if HOW the author communicated it is lost on most readers, isn't that wasted effort on behalf of the author? Although this goes into a more philosophical point as to who the author is writing for. Maybe (like other literary works), Erikson felt good putting something truly special on paper for himself, us lowly peasants without English degrees be damned. And I'm OK with that!
This touches on a point that some people raise which is, why don't authors just tell us the things? It would be easier to understand, it would be more direct, it would lead to less uncertainty... but it would also be boring. Some of the beauty of reading is seeing experiencing all the different techniques that can be used to convey information, and to evoke feelings in the reader. Sure it would be easier to just say this thing happened, but that lacks artistry, grace, and immersion, and ultimately would make reading about the assimilation of factual information rather than the enjoyment of art.
@@ACriticalDragon Thank you, that hits the nail on the head for me. I think it will make my second reading more enjoyable and I will want to slow down to get a deeper understanding.
If there ever is to be a malazan movie or TV show, I want this guy to play Whiskeyjack. Fits perfectly, except for maybe the accent a little and the voice needs little rugging up, and the facial expression needs to unmellow somewhat too... But other than that, this is Whiskeyjack, Beru fend us all.
In DoD right now. Up until this point I was like "oh yeah, the series is a bit dense but I can follow what's going on well enough". But DoD has me lost lmfao
Well I hope that you still enjoy it. I think relaxing the need to understand everything, and accepting the general concepts gives you enough footing that when more details are slowly fed to you you are in the right place to enjoy them. The need to completely understand everything up front and have things detailed as soon as you encounter them is something that the modern genre has really doubled down on, and it has changed a lot of reader expectation about how fantasy 'should' be written, when thinking of it as how it 'could' be written is more accurate.
I haven't found it difficult so far as much as boring. All the dialog feels like there's a 400 pound goralla in the room and everyone is refusing to talk about it. I shouldn't be nodding off when a mage is destroying whole armies with a single spell, but it's all rather dull so far.
Personally I wouldn't describe the writing in Kharkanas as spewing jargon. It certainly has a far more formal register, and a much more archaic and overtly stylised approach, but it is not really jargon, and it is too tightly controlled and consistent to be spewing.
I understand why people like this series. Everyone said, "Keep going!" About half way through the 3rd book I realized I would never like it. 95% exposition, and 5% story.
There is plenty of story and plot, given the number of narrative events either sequentially or chronologically, plus there is a fair amount of dialogue and even some poetry, so your breakdown might be a little skewed.
