Shone Like the Sun

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

writerman272:

shonelikethesun:

I am a great fan of Steven Erikson. The Malazan cycle is the best ever written bar none. I like Martin too, just not as much as Erikson.

With that said, it may seem that the two authors have a lot in common: they write fantasy that goes against many of the genre clichés,…

I agree with almost every point but I do think that the Red Wedding had less impact than certain scenes in the MBOTF. *Spoilers* The end of the chain of dogs I feel had greater emotional impact. (probably because i’m such a malazan fanboy but hear me out). That DESTROYED the main cast of the Wickans. It was a lesson in futility when you had to watch what happened to coltaine, and how it was resolved with Squint. The fact that you had to sit there and experience the horror, and how it continued onwards with Dukier. Another point of pure horror and a feeling of “Why” is the death of Onos T’oolan in Dust of Dreams, and the subsequent Hetan sequence. (Look on Tor.com re read, the first comment of this thread is by Erikson himself explaining why he did this http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/03/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen-on-hetan-the-barghast-and-the-portrayal-of-torture-in-fantasy-fiction ). Martin has been able to create a persona of not letting any character be safe from death. Yet I feel that Steven was able to take that premise, and expand it to whole peoples and put it on a scale that dwarfs ASOIAF. Erikson was able to make us sympathize with those who were despicable, most notably I feel with Kallor. Martin has really only made us care for the good guys. That is, I feel the greatest gulf between the two. Both have good stories. Erikson has the story that makes you question the line of “good” and “Evil”. Also fuck Joffrey. We can all agree on that.

I 90% agree with you. Still, the Red Wedding was raw and actually wiped out a whole faction, the one where the hopes to overthrow the Lannisters mainly rested. Yes there are other Starks around but none in power of anything; as with the Wickans, not all dead but without the only, and best, leader.

<

p>But the main point about the Red Wedding was that from that scene Martin started to kill off characters just for the show. It is the turning point of the series so far. A bit like the night in Malaz City with Laseen and the Bonehunters: that was the beginning of the second part of the MBOTF, even if probably nobody realised on the first read. As usual with Erikson he didn’t tell you what was happening, you had to get it, later more often than sooner. Martin is only hard to guess what’s going to happen, obviously as if wasn’t so he’d be a poor writer. But we all get the whys. He’s pretty straightforward.

I agree it was a lesson in futility but I still feel that if we are going for that raw feeling of despair, which you mentioned before as well, that nothing really can top the death of Trull. And I feel that perhaps the faction wipe was not a good thing for the series. It was a moment that will live forever in the series and really galvanized the fan base, but despite that perhaps its less, real. That has really been my problem with the series in general I feel. The characterization of the people who live in that world are so unbelievable. Joffery’s actions personify this. The characters so often feel flat in their roles and very rarely do any change their ways significantly. (They usually die instead). The faction wipe not only wiped the potential cast, but I feel that it wasn’t used as much of a springboard for character growth for others to see how the world is so much as a plot device to shock people and to quickly get rid of people that needed to not be around.

Exactly that. Martin kills people to get more audience and because he’s done with those characters. Everything boils down to the show, the plot, not the meaning as with Erikson.

I don’t think removing the Starks from the war was a bad move. It surprised the readers, obviously, and introduced the period of the story where everything seems to go bad. Meaning, the Lannisters seem to have it way too easy. The bad guys. Like in LOTR between the supposed death of Gandalf and the battle of Helm’s Deep: the reader had the feeling that the world was going to end with the forces of evil triumphing. It’s a preparatory step for the hero to come and save the day. In LOTR the hero(s) were Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo, in Martin, so far, Tyrion and Jon Snow. There’s no such a comparison possible with Erikson. Both Coltaine’s and Trull’s deaths come when things seemed to end well. With their deaths the readers are left unsatisfied, without justice, partly hopeless. Exactly what Erikson meant and how he works: meaning before plot. Coltaine would have been a great hero to lead the malazans till the very end; instead he chose Tavore, a anti-heroine. This is why I love Erikson, he’s so wary of not falling into the same old patterns of the genre and also so much more deep than any other fantasy writer out there that one can only read his pages in awe. With the possible exception of Bakker who, unfortunately, tends to show off his intelligence way too much, lacking Erikson’s humility.

I agree Erikson is my favorite author for that reason. I think Martin giving the Lannisters things way to easy is perhaps his most realistic portrayal of people. The good guy’s shouldn’t always be the ones to win. In war, it’s about who is more prepared. The starks were thrown into everything whilst the Lannisters made it a point to control as much as possible in order to be able to have the power to rule if needed. It is a good point of order. Though I would say that perhaps, out of everyone, Fiddler is the protagonist of the MBOTF. He is not the most vital, he is not the most powerful or worthy, yet he is with us to the end. He is the somewhat everyman (yes he does have crazy experiences but its tempered over time) that the reader can connect and he is in both the beginning and ending scenes of the entire series. Fiddler, is perhaps the juxtaposition of all the insanity of the series, a guy who joined a cause and survived through it all. He is simultaneously unnotable in the grand scheme of things being in the center of it all with little actual physical power compared to say Rake, yet without him nothing would have been possible. The bonehunters would have sustained heavy losses if he hadn’t saved the Spiritwalkers grandchildren and gotten a gift in return. The squads wouldn’t have had his guidance and leadership until the end. Tavore wouldn’t have had the reading happen in Dust of Dreams. Integral, yet not in the spotlight. That’s how I feel about the series. Erikson has crafted perhaps the best epic fantasy series of all time (my personal opinion) yet he has not recieved acclaim, because of how grand in scope it is. The series is an important part of fantasy literature history yet is not as well known.

I think we could say the same about Quick Ben. He’s basically the mastermind behind the Bridgeburners and their actions. Or Ganoes Paran, without whom I don’t think the very last battle could have been won. Actually it’s a futile exercise to look for a main character in the MBOTF because I believe Erikson didn’t write it with any in mind. As in real history, some characters can be more important than others but no one is the main character of the whole human history. Even Jesus is of little importance in the history of the most populous and biggest continent on earth, Asia.

That’s it I guess, Erikson wrote the very first real fantasy series, literally speaking. It feels real. Not because it’s set in our own world but in a different time, like Tolkien’s works, but because it is so similar to our own history, if there were humanoid races and magic. It’s plausible, even. You couldn’t have expected anything less from an anthropologist after all :)