Should I read these books?

[Jack]

I am deciding between Wheel of Time and Malazan book of the fallen as my next Epic series to read while I am waiting for Brandon Sandersons Stormlight Archive book 3 to come out. Which should I start. I have read all of Tolkiens Middle Earth books, Brandon Sandersons books, Powder Mage, and many others. Comments please

[Stan]

It depends on how advanced of a reader you are and whether you appreciate depth and insight. You're going to have to work as reader if you read the Malazan books. They take time and thought. That time and thought will be rewarded, but it is required, nonetheless.

If you prefer an 'easy read,' the Wheel of Time is for you. If you want to have your view of the world, time, humanity, and the development of culture and religion challenged, the the Malazan books are for you.

I will say that I stopped reading Wheel of Time after Book 8 because I was bored. I have read the Malazan books twice, the first book in the prequel trilogy (eagerly awaiting the second), and I've read all of Ian Esslemont's books which are also set in the Malazan universe and support The Book of the Fallen.

[Rob, Quick Ben]

I enjoyed both series overall. I probably enjoyed Wheel of Time more. It's possible that I'd like Malazan more on a reread. They are quite dense and full of rewards for the careful reader/rereader.

I agree with Stan that the middle books of WoT are slow. 8-9 were tough to read. 10 was downright painful until the end. The end had me jumping right into book 11 though.

I like Malazan a lot, but as Stan indicated, it's the harder read. I also found certain books/parts of books in Malazan just as slow/boring as the middle part of Wheel of Time. I seem to be in a minority there however.

Both have their pros and cons. Wheel of Time is more in the vein of Stormlight Archive, plus Sanderson wrote the last three books. But it's longer, and probably has more slower parts overall.

Malazan is a lot darker and more dense, but potentially more rewarding, if you're the type of person who doesn't mind/enjoys working for it.

I will say this group is an excellent resource to help you with that. We have detailed chapter discussions that have been kept spoiler free so you can safely visit any of the threads for chapters you've already written.

Personally I don't think you can go wrong with either choice, but whichever you choose I'd recommend pacing yourself and working in other series/shorter books in between so you don't burn yourself out.

[Jack]

I have read the first of Ian Esslemonts books and enjoyed it. But I don't know what to think of the book of the fallen. I have heard some great things about it but also that it is very confusing should I finish Esslemonts books before starting Book of the Fallen or does it matter? Also I have heard that it doesn't matter which book you read first in Book of the Fallen should I start with Gardens of the Moon or which one should I read.

[Stan]

I wouldn't read Essslemont's until you finish Erikson's. His just aren't as good, but they help explain some things Erikson mentions in passing.

[Karen]

I have yet to read Wheel of Time but would highly recommend the Malazan series if you have a lot of time to put into it

Jack wrote: "I have read the first of Ian Esslemonts books and enjoyed it. But I don't know what to think of the book of the fallen. I have heard some great things about it but also that it is very confusing sh..."

I'm reading the whole series for the first time at the moment and I found this ordering thing very helpful http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/m...

[Perry]

The first six Malazan books are fantastic, and are worth any effort needed to wade through the difficult parts. but starting with the seventh, the narrative style becomes far more ponderous, and Erikson starts getting way too philosophically self-absorbed. Reaper's Gale suffered for this, but paid off in the end. Toll the Hounds, to me, was borderline unreadable, I truly hated it. It's unfortunate, because several important storylines were resolved in that book, but I couldn't get past Erikson's literary conceits. I'm reading Dust of Dreams right now, and it's a bit better. I'm nearing the end of the series, and, quite frankly, I'm ready for it to be over. I read Esslemont's first two books. Night of Knives was decent, Return of the Crimson Guard was a mess. I won't be visiting the others.

[Stan]

Perry, I agree with you about the 8th book. It was the hardest one to read, but toward the end there were more "holy crap" revelations in that book than any other. I think that's the book in which Kallor finally becomes a three-dimensional character.

[Perry]

Very true Stan. For me, though, the holy crap moments (particularly THE holy crap moment of the entire series) were ruined by Erikson's inability to get out of his own way. Rather than feeling shocked at that particular moment, my reaction was much more muted than the moment deserved.

I think the character Kadaspala in Dragnipur is the perfect example of Erikson's hubris. Why, in the middle of an already overly complex read, does he decide to introduce a character with an incredibly annoying speech affectation? I had to skim through the Kadaspala scenes because reading his dialogue literally made me impatient and angry. There was no regional or ethnic reason for Kadaspala to speak that way, nor was it critical to a deeper understanding of the character. Seeing how Erikson became obsessed with broader comedic brushstrokes beginning around Midnight Tides or so, I wouldn't doubt that he thought writing Kadaspala this way was funny or clever. I thought it was simply obnoxious, and was kind of indicative of the overall book for me. All of the returning characters deserved better, and the readers definitely did.

[Stan]

I'm going to paraphrase something Neil Gaiman said of George R.R. Martin: Steven Erikson is not our bitch. He's said the 8th book is his favorite book despite what people like us say about it. The man wrote the book he wanted to write and he didn't let concerns about the reader get in the way of that. I respect that, and it makes me want to understand what he was trying to accomplish even more.

[Perry]

Wow, I wish I had known that before I started the series. For all the enjoyment the first seven books gave me, knowing that Eriikson, effectively, holds his readers in contempt, truly turns me off. I should probably hold true to this new conviction and stop my slog through DoD, and save the money on TCG. Like a sucker, I'll see it through to the end, but it's crushingly disappointing to me to find out that Erikson didn't think enough of his readers that he would try to balance his desire to satisfy his own muse while concurrently giving his audience, which had loyally followed him through thick and thin, something palatable to hold on to. For those who are satisfied and happy with his direction, more power to you. But I find myself revisiting favorite parts of the earlier books, and find it hard to believe now that I'm reading the same series.

[Tim]

Yes, if you are willing to make the commitment, it will reward you. But fair warning, I believe that commitment includes a second reading, once is not enough. So it's a big commitment. But it's also a pleasure.

[Tim]

Perry wrote: "Wow, I wish I had known that before I started the series. For all the enjoyment the first seven books gave me, knowing that Eriikson, effectively, holds his readers in contempt, truly turns me off...."

On the contrary, Erikson challenges his readers and has the highest expectations of them. He dumbs nothing down for anyone, he holds no punches, he holds nothing back. I'm not sure how you interpret that as contempt.

[Perry]

The previous poster said Erikson wrote the book he wanted to write and didn't let the reader get in the way of that. I have no idea whether Erikson really wrote with that attitude , but if what the poster said is true, I view it as contempt.

If Malazan fans truly like the last three books, more power to them. I thought the early novels were glorious, but as I slog to the finish line of TCG, my brain has been pounded to dust (we all know how much Erikson loves his dust metaphors), and I just want it to be over with. Hopefully the ending will be reasonably worth the effort, because the book has sucked up to this point, and a series I once treasured has become an anchor around my neck.

[Anthony]

You mentioned that you read Brandon Sanderson and Tolkien. Both authors, especially Sanderson like to "explain" a lot of the history and mechanics of their respective worlds, especially the magical systems and the background stories. If you are accustomed to this type of storytelling, then I don't think you'll like the Malazan books because Erickson explains nothing and, instead, revels in the vast mysteries he is playing with. The characters (and therefore, the readers) typically operate under strange and beguiling situations and circumstances that are never fully explained, nor fully realized. And yet, that's part of its beauty. Because if you think about our own life, our own world...we all exist under mysterious circumstances. Why do we exist? Do we have a soul? Where do we go when we die? We have no answers to these questions, and yet it is these unanswerable questions that seem to define who and what we are, not the answers themselves. So should you read these books? That depends: Do you want quick, easy answers to questions you didn't even ask? Or do you want to experience deep, beautiful questions that either have no quick, easy answers, or no answers at all?

[Slow]

I am quite late to this thread, but would still like to add my 2 cents, as it can help someone still on the fence looking for advice.

In most other stories, you are made to understand the world and the situation of atleast the protagonist in sufficient detail, so that you can appreciate the fine details of the story as it progresses. Also, most of the times you can quite quickly guess who the main characters are and you stick with them throughout the story.

Malazan story is different. And that's why you should read these books.

This world has some strong characters who do important stuff, but you don't always read about them. Sometimes you don't even know which character is going to become important, so you pay attention to a lot of them. And as other commentors have said, you are just thrown in the mix to figure out what's going on.

But instead of making you part of the story by telling you all the working details of the world, you are made a spectator and given glimpses of what's going on in this world. You look at the actions, hear the conversations, sometimes become privy to characters' past, and then form your impressions. There is no clearly noble or evil character, and it's left to you to make your own impressions about each of them. This means you decide on what the story looks like to you. And that I think is one powerful style of storytelling - the story becomes what you want it to be about.

There are a lot of characters and plotlines, you won't love them all. Not everything is explained even till the end. Not all the backstories are revealed. But that's not the aim. Imagine it being similar to watching a game of football without knowing the rules of the game. You will figure out some stuff by the end, you will not know which player to follow when the game starts but you will have your favourites after the final whistle, you won't always see the full playing field and neither side is good or evil. But there will be enough moments to keep you excited and you will find your own things to enjoy.

So, get ready for an epic adventure and start reading.