Terry Gorman read and liked Ben's review of Gardens of the Moon (Malazan Book of the Fallen, #1):

"Technically speaking I read this book and the Ice and Fire series as work-related research. I think that the cover alone might have been enough to scare me off otherwise. This book is quality, though not *great* fantasy fare. By and large I enjoyed i...more Technically speaking I read this book and the Ice and Fire series as work-related research. I think that the cover alone might have been enough to scare me off otherwise. This book is quality, though not *great* fantasy fare. By and large I enjoyed it in the role of fantasy geek; my more literary aspect was full of frowns as smiles throughout the course of it.

The book is not well written; specifically, it is bad prose written by someone who is very intelligent, but lacks an ear for poetry, or in fact, language in general. The names are atrocious (and to think I complained about G.R.R. Martin's names!), and the sentences are disjointed in a kind of technical way that often left me rereading them because I had somehow missed the sense in them as I grappled with their structure. There is a good deal of poetry prefacing the book and every chapter, and it is quite bad. Not just because it doesn't rhyme, but because it too is disjointed, and all too often it seems to be making a smug in-joke for the author, rather than informing the reader's understanding of the book.

To complement the actual prose style, the story to be told is not an easy one to jump into. For the first fifty pages I had no idea what was going on, and seventy-five pages after that I had just the beginning of an inkling. Granted, The Sound and the Fury presents a similar level of disorientation, but I won't belabor this review with a list of reasons why Erikson is not William Faulkner.

All of that said, the story is a good one. Ultimately, it feels a bit like historical fiction, except set in a fantasy version of history. The characters don't have the depth, or interest, or, well, *character* you'd get from the greats of fantasy, or of literature in general. But the history feels real, and the way that individuals are played upon by such greater forces has enough of a grain of truth to it to be compelling. Erikson does not create the immersively accurate-feeling world that George R.R. Martin does, but he often alights on a writerly detail or artifact that gives his world considerably more depth than it would otherwise have.

Lastly, the fantasy geek in me was entirely satisfied by the fantasy part of the book. Erikson's model for magic is intriguing (and feels slightly video-gamish to my eyes, actually). He has done the courageous thing and largely departed from the old Orks'n'Elves pabulum. Although he has analogs to some of these things, he has created his mages, monsters, and non-humans afresh. Of course, their names are over complex, unpronounceable, and generally intractible. But still.

By the books end, you get the feeling that Erikson has made the opening move in a game of chess; or, to try another metaphor, that he has presented us with a prelude, chosen his instrumentation, a key, and the major themes of movements to come.(less) "

Terry Gorman read and liked Jennn's review of Stalking Darkness (Nightrunner, #2):

"I like the characters, I do. They change and develope. I also like how Flewelling will revisit things, too, like the death of Alec's father. Things aren't just swept under the rug and I appreciate that.

I also appreciate how Seregil and Al...more I like the characters, I do. They change and develope. I also like how Flewelling will revisit things, too, like the death of Alec's father. Things aren't just swept under the rug and I appreciate that.

I also appreciate how Seregil and Alec's relationship isn't the focus of the story that unfortunately happens too much in romance, especially homoerotica. The book is more dedicated to the story and in doing so, makes their relationship realistic and believable.

The biggest complaint I have is making the villians, well, too villianous. There's no semblance of humanity in them. They hunt, torture, kill and do little else. I was really hoping that there would be much more depth in her villians because I appreciate The Antagonist and a strong antagonist makes a stronger protagonist. However, these were bad, bad men and their actions seemed over-the-top, like she was trying to convince her reader of how nefarious they truly were. I ached to see instances of weakness, and quiet contemplation. Maybe even a relationship (non-romantic) form between her two leading villians. But unfortunately they struck me as flat, and although terrifying, remained uninteresting.

As a small note, Thero is becoming a fantastic character and I'm excited to see more of him in the next book.(less) "