Instead of reviewing the sixth and seventh books of the Malazan Book of the Fallen separately, I'm going to discuss both in this entry. My previous reviews focused mainly on the themes for each book, but this time I'm going to take out my hammer and look more closely at Steven Erikson's delivery. Although both books have explored two themes, they focused mainly on intergrating the two major story lines of the series. This time the Malazan Empire meets the Letherii and the Tiste Edur.
The Bonehunters
Erikson's sixth book sought to question the fate of the characters who followed or were forced to follow their gods. Are the faithful, or in most cases here, those who had been chosen by the gods, doomed to become tools forever? This subject is fully explored through the four characters: Apsalar, Heboric, Kalam, and Icarium.
Ganoes Paran's interpretation of ascendancy was also shown in this book. The nature of the younger gods' path to godhood may have been achieved in many ways.
The murder of an ascendant, a goddess, was also shown for the first time. But the book also made me think that although Poliel had doomed humanity, I cannot deny that she had a valid reason to do so. Her very existence in the first place shows that there was a need for someone like her to keep the balance. The war of the gods has begun, and the characters involved must choose carefully which side they want to be in. The problem is, there are no good and bad sides. Each one only seeks to fulfill the task that is assigned to them.
Compared to the seventh book, the action scenes and imagery here are acceptable. But it would have lent more color to the story if the battle at Y'ghatan was written better. If you ask me what it looks like, I can only say that it might look like a burned walled town. Some people might tell me that perhaps Erikson just wants to leave the rest of the details to the readers' imagination. But let me ask - where do I begin to imagine how it looks like?
Kalam and T'amber's fight was poorly done as well. I know Erikson tried, and to his credit, he didn't overuse the phrase 'the [insert weapon here] was in a blur'. It was like watching everything in slow motion and you can't really remember what happened after you close the book.
Icarium and Trull's fight were okay, but he passed up an opportunity to show how both characters actually fight. We know they're both good, but we can't see how good.
Reaper's Gale
The first thing I noticed about this book is the new format of the preliminary pages and the glossary. The characters have descriptions after their names, although all it does is to help readers identify what tribe or race or nation or army they belong to.
I have a lot of things to say about this book, but first I will start with the good points. What I found impressive about this series from the very beginning is its rich, new world that does not resemble any other fantasy book I've heard of. Not only was he able to create races that are not the typical elves-dwarves-ogres-humans list, he made other creatures that populated it as well. Some of those creatures were further described here, although not as detailed as I would have expected from someone with Erikson's caliber.
He also does not have the usual fancy names like Forbidden Forest, Sword of Truth, and all that crap. The names of the characters don't have fancy spellings as well.
Two of the things I liked most not just in this book, but in the whole series was his creation of distinctive cultures of the different races and nations, and the in-depth character development. I want to be able to get something more from a novel besides the story and Erikson did not disappoint me in that. I like the parts when the characters are introspecting. He also explored various themes in each book, and in Reaper's Gale, he has shown, in Silchas Ruin's words, 'the difference between an angry god and an evil one who are both betrayed'. Silchas was betrayed but instead of answering it with vengeance, he gave Scabandari a place to live in. That does not imply however that the Crippled God is an evil god; but he chose to act out of bitterness, which leads me to the bad points of the book.
In my previous reviews, I always mentioned the bad fight scenes. But they were not as obvious because most of them are not one-on-one combats. The battles between the Awl and Letherii were good though he used the word 'wedge' too much.
What was very disappointing was the lack of effort to describe Karsa and Rhulad's match. I know Karsa did not move much but it was an opportunity to show what his movements were like when fighting. It's disappointing to see how he built up the tension and did not deliver when it was most important. It was also an opportunity to show how powerful the influence the Crippled God has on a mortal. The nature of the sword forged by Withal was not described very well in previous books but we cannot glean any other kind of power it bestows besides making Rhulad come back to life. It made me question the conversation between the god and Karsa. If the weapon was made for Karsa and only he could withstand its effects, then what else does it have that will make Karsa more powerful than he already has? The sword made Rhulad mad because he was weak and because he could not handle the process of waking up every time he dies but is that all there is to it? Erikson proved Karsa is not easy to kill, so what does he need 'immortality' for?
Second, I was disappointed he never even bothered to describe one of the mechanisms built by Icarium in Letheras. Again, people will argue that the writer wants to leave it to the readers' imagination, but what should I imagine in the first place? I'm not asking Erikson to write a paragraph to describe them. But what was disappointing is that there wasn't any word to describe them. If he did not even want to reveal even the shape, then why use Rautos' point of view again and again? You don't need to build up the mystery by letting your character ramble on and on and not get anywhere. He has built up Icarium's reputation very well. I don't need to know everything but 'imagery' does not have to reveal the secrets that you want the readers to keep guessing. Icarium may not be an important character, but it seemed like it was his last appearance in the series. Not everyone will agree with me, I know. But there are scenes and artifacts in the series that could have been done better if they were described well. Again, Erikson does not need to dedicate more than two paragraphs for that.
Eternal Domicile. Three rulers have lived in it, and yet what do we know about it except that part of it is falling to pieces? He can describe open spaces very well but Erikson seems a bit challenged when describing closed spaces. Do you know why it's important to define the setting? Because that's where things happen. It's like building a house with no walls and roof if you don't describe them.
Prominent characters. Can you picture out what Kalam looks like or any other character for that matter? I remember lines where Erikson described facial features of the character, but those were minor characters. I can describe Triban Gnol and Karos Invictad more and yet they died in this book.
Fight scenes. I don't need to elaborate on this. Any Erikson fan who is not a blind fanboy and fangirl will notice this immediately.
Weapons. He did describe several of them but let me cite once instance that shows his lack of imagery is not a style. He mentioned the atlatl while describing the Awl army. I know what that looks like and sure, the readers can look it up the dictionary. But what if the readers don't know it's an actual weapon? So they'd just take it as another fancy weapon with a fancy name?
The problem with Erikson is that he summarizes his descriptions into a few technical terms. Not only that, he uses the same words again and again. Someone told me that maybe it's just a style. But let me ask--- if descriptions were not important then why provide a map in the preceding pages? Why start the prologue with an attempt at imagery filled with metaphors? Why write exceprts in the beginning of each chapter? Why say a Kethra knife instead of knife (he did not describe what the Kethra knife looks like)?
Don't get me wrong, I think Erikson is brilliant but his writing lacks a few things. What makes a good story is a good combination of every element. He has a good imagination. He knows how to build a world and with different characters. Trying to be different from other writers does not mean you will forsake what makes a good narrative.
Rating for both books: 7 out of 10
The Bonehunters
Erikson's sixth book sought to question the fate of the characters who followed or were forced to follow their gods. Are the faithful, or in most cases here, those who had been chosen by the gods, doomed to become tools forever? This subject is fully explored through the four characters: Apsalar, Heboric, Kalam, and Icarium.
Ganoes Paran's interpretation of ascendancy was also shown in this book. The nature of the younger gods' path to godhood may have been achieved in many ways.
The murder of an ascendant, a goddess, was also shown for the first time. But the book also made me think that although Poliel had doomed humanity, I cannot deny that she had a valid reason to do so. Her very existence in the first place shows that there was a need for someone like her to keep the balance. The war of the gods has begun, and the characters involved must choose carefully which side they want to be in. The problem is, there are no good and bad sides. Each one only seeks to fulfill the task that is assigned to them.
Compared to the seventh book, the action scenes and imagery here are acceptable. But it would have lent more color to the story if the battle at Y'ghatan was written better. If you ask me what it looks like, I can only say that it might look like a burned walled town. Some people might tell me that perhaps Erikson just wants to leave the rest of the details to the readers' imagination. But let me ask - where do I begin to imagine how it looks like?
Kalam and T'amber's fight was poorly done as well. I know Erikson tried, and to his credit, he didn't overuse the phrase 'the [insert weapon here] was in a blur'. It was like watching everything in slow motion and you can't really remember what happened after you close the book.
Icarium and Trull's fight were okay, but he passed up an opportunity to show how both characters actually fight. We know they're both good, but we can't see how good.
Reaper's Gale
The first thing I noticed about this book is the new format of the preliminary pages and the glossary. The characters have descriptions after their names, although all it does is to help readers identify what tribe or race or nation or army they belong to.
I have a lot of things to say about this book, but first I will start with the good points. What I found impressive about this series from the very beginning is its rich, new world that does not resemble any other fantasy book I've heard of. Not only was he able to create races that are not the typical elves-dwarves-ogres-humans list, he made other creatures that populated it as well. Some of those creatures were further described here, although not as detailed as I would have expected from someone with Erikson's caliber.
He also does not have the usual fancy names like Forbidden Forest, Sword of Truth, and all that crap. The names of the characters don't have fancy spellings as well.
Two of the things I liked most not just in this book, but in the whole series was his creation of distinctive cultures of the different races and nations, and the in-depth character development. I want to be able to get something more from a novel besides the story and Erikson did not disappoint me in that. I like the parts when the characters are introspecting. He also explored various themes in each book, and in Reaper's Gale, he has shown, in Silchas Ruin's words, 'the difference between an angry god and an evil one who are both betrayed'. Silchas was betrayed but instead of answering it with vengeance, he gave Scabandari a place to live in. That does not imply however that the Crippled God is an evil god; but he chose to act out of bitterness, which leads me to the bad points of the book.
In my previous reviews, I always mentioned the bad fight scenes. But they were not as obvious because most of them are not one-on-one combats. The battles between the Awl and Letherii were good though he used the word 'wedge' too much.
What was very disappointing was the lack of effort to describe Karsa and Rhulad's match. I know Karsa did not move much but it was an opportunity to show what his movements were like when fighting. It's disappointing to see how he built up the tension and did not deliver when it was most important. It was also an opportunity to show how powerful the influence the Crippled God has on a mortal. The nature of the sword forged by Withal was not described very well in previous books but we cannot glean any other kind of power it bestows besides making Rhulad come back to life. It made me question the conversation between the god and Karsa. If the weapon was made for Karsa and only he could withstand its effects, then what else does it have that will make Karsa more powerful than he already has? The sword made Rhulad mad because he was weak and because he could not handle the process of waking up every time he dies but is that all there is to it? Erikson proved Karsa is not easy to kill, so what does he need 'immortality' for?
Second, I was disappointed he never even bothered to describe one of the mechanisms built by Icarium in Letheras. Again, people will argue that the writer wants to leave it to the readers' imagination, but what should I imagine in the first place? I'm not asking Erikson to write a paragraph to describe them. But what was disappointing is that there wasn't any word to describe them. If he did not even want to reveal even the shape, then why use Rautos' point of view again and again? You don't need to build up the mystery by letting your character ramble on and on and not get anywhere. He has built up Icarium's reputation very well. I don't need to know everything but 'imagery' does not have to reveal the secrets that you want the readers to keep guessing. Icarium may not be an important character, but it seemed like it was his last appearance in the series. Not everyone will agree with me, I know. But there are scenes and artifacts in the series that could have been done better if they were described well. Again, Erikson does not need to dedicate more than two paragraphs for that.
Eternal Domicile. Three rulers have lived in it, and yet what do we know about it except that part of it is falling to pieces? He can describe open spaces very well but Erikson seems a bit challenged when describing closed spaces. Do you know why it's important to define the setting? Because that's where things happen. It's like building a house with no walls and roof if you don't describe them.
Prominent characters. Can you picture out what Kalam looks like or any other character for that matter? I remember lines where Erikson described facial features of the character, but those were minor characters. I can describe Triban Gnol and Karos Invictad more and yet they died in this book.
Fight scenes. I don't need to elaborate on this. Any Erikson fan who is not a blind fanboy and fangirl will notice this immediately.
Weapons. He did describe several of them but let me cite once instance that shows his lack of imagery is not a style. He mentioned the atlatl while describing the Awl army. I know what that looks like and sure, the readers can look it up the dictionary. But what if the readers don't know it's an actual weapon? So they'd just take it as another fancy weapon with a fancy name?
The problem with Erikson is that he summarizes his descriptions into a few technical terms. Not only that, he uses the same words again and again. Someone told me that maybe it's just a style. But let me ask--- if descriptions were not important then why provide a map in the preceding pages? Why start the prologue with an attempt at imagery filled with metaphors? Why write exceprts in the beginning of each chapter? Why say a Kethra knife instead of knife (he did not describe what the Kethra knife looks like)?
Don't get me wrong, I think Erikson is brilliant but his writing lacks a few things. What makes a good story is a good combination of every element. He has a good imagination. He knows how to build a world and with different characters. Trying to be different from other writers does not mean you will forsake what makes a good narrative.
Rating for both books: 7 out of 10
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome! Please keep it clean.