I've been somewhat lost while reading this book, should I read the series or does it get worse?

I've read along using that reference as a first time reader and can say it doesn't contain spoilers unless you read down in the comments section. Very rarely is a minor spoiler used in the actual comments by the writers, and it's mostly something I missed and never picked up on in the first place.

I'll be 100% honest and say I've never read it, and anything I've heard about it has led me away from it. However, I can say I read genre fiction for fun (and even then I'm incredibly picky) and very rarely does it provide literary merit, but this series consistently does. At least the books written by Erikson are, I've heard Esslemont is a bit more utilitarian.

I'm curious: do you think a 10 novel series can't contain literary merit due to its length?

It can't contain literary merit because it's fantasy that isn't by Wolfe.

No, I'm just curious what's special about this one, as it was apparently supposed to be a D&D setting originally or something, and it's kind of hard to imagine someone with genuine literary ambition turning a D&D setting into a series of novels. Do you think this series is comparable to, say, Proust in "literary merit"? Or, for perhaps more popular examples, War & Peace or Les Miserables, their also being really long books with lots of characters?

The series has its moments but it really went to shit after book 3.
Whole books spent building up some fucking tribe or guy that end up being killed off or making no real difference to the overall plot. Half of the books are meaningless drivel between characters that feel out of place for their characters. Its LOST in book form.

He's not even the best living American author in the genre who is white and a man IMO

Yeah, you're 100% right in that it started as a D&D game. Then later moved onto GURPs. The important thing is though it wasn't just one session or campaign, it was many over years, and a lot of what the books are isn't a retelling of sessions (it never once read that way to me) but backstory for the world too.

As far as literary merit on the level of Proust or Tolstoy? No, but that doesn't mean Malazan doesn't have its place, which is on the high, high end of fantasy novels which chance to offer something more. Erikson has two backgrounds which show most in the writing, and that's archaeology/anthropology and short story writing. These both contribute immensely into his writing, which is often construed as nebulous, vague, or offering too much with too little context (almost like first discovering an archeological dig and being overwhelmed with information until you learn how that culture lives), yet like short stories, almost nothing is unimportant - nearly every word and sentence is placed for a reason. This style, which never holds your hand like fantasy authors are wont to do, along with his focus on some very human themes which shine above a fantasy genre and setting, set him apart and give the series merit.

So I wouldn't ever say Erikson should join literary heavy-weights often discussed on this board, but compared to most fantasy or genre authors, he holds his own and should be recognized for such.

...Or people can just read Sanderson and be amazed at flashy magic and fight scenes while ignoring the cardboard cutout characters and story. Or just ignore the series and author entirely because of a label based on its setting.

The only good malazan books are the ones involving the T'lan Imass heavily or the Tiste Edur storyline.

The other concepts are kinda boring and lame, Fiddler is cool though.

That's unfair. I've read the book, even though I don't usually read genre fiction. The prose of the book is confused. Not confusing, but confused. It's just a hard-to-follow mess.

Minor cosmological spoilers:

Warrens are magical planes that wizards pull magic from. Some warrens can be traveled through. Holds are older warrens, mostly connected with certain elder races.

Ascendants are gods and/or near-gods. They ascend for various reasons, but mostly due to being powerful (if not combat-type powerful, then some other reason such as conviction). It's possible to ascend without noticing.

The Houses are the pantheons of the Warrens and Holds. The positions can change and be usurped. Some positions are not filled.

Finally, the Crippled God is a BAMF and Corabb Bhilan Thenu'alas is the best character.

Have an outdated reading order chart (remember, always in order of publication).

excuse me, i have a question. i was told there was a gay male character in this series. is that true? if so, who is he and what book/s is he in?

Well, it's nice to know that he has the basics of linguistic economy and thematic expression down, but I don't get the impression he does these things in a particularly new or interesting way. If anything, it just sounds like perhaps a slightly elevated adventure or thriller novel.

There are certainly great books in the fantasy genre (though I prefer to think of fantasy not as a genre, but as a mode), and they indeed aspire to and sometimes reach the literary heights of the classics (as well as great contemporary literature, of course), but that's because they have in them a comparable degree of originality, beauty and intelligence, which I don't suspect the author of this series of novels is even particularly interested in approaching.

I might end up reading Malazan anyway as it sounds like something I'd enjoy. I doubt it's much worse than most of the long-running mangas I'm following, at least

A minor character in the last two novels of the series.

There's a lesbian soldier couple as well.

I really don't see where you're coming from. Examples? Like I said, I had no trouble with it at age 16, except maybe like one or two specific sentences, and I read it over like 2 or 3 days.

Except it's better than Deadhouse Gates. Gardens is no masterpiece, but the characters aren't as flat and the plot convergence on Darujihstan has more tension than the random threads of people wandering a desert.

Wheel of Time is trash compared to Malazan, imo. Erikson is a talented writer. It really all depends on how you define literary merit. He does fantasy well, unlike almost all fantasy authors. No reason it couldn't be compared to 'lit' like The Count of Monte Cristo, for example, if people could get past the setting. But they can't, so only fantasy readers will take it seriously.

Malazan gets better

GotM is just shit

Wheel of time is just shit though.

I could see it being as fun as Dumas' novels, but even his books are potboilers.

GotM is better but Erikson's writing was improved with Deadhouse Gates.

Also the 7th Army is described as 100% gender neutral but Felisin arc had that massive gender struggle were she got exploited by each and every man in those mines.
Little immersion breaker.

I read it when I was 13. I had no difficulty following it. Are you sure you don't have Down's Syndrome?

7th Army is Malazan culture. Things are a little different among not-Arab prisoners. You can't really say a 15 year old girl getting fucked silly in a chiefly-male prison is immersion-breaking.

P.S. Felisin is the worst.

>P.S. Felisin is the worst.
She's well developed and I like her scenes.

I bet you liked Lolita for the sex scenes.

Nah, I'm being facetious. I get the appeal of the character, I just felt her chapters at times were a distraction from the other plotlines.

Out of curiosity, did you enjoy Mhybe in Memories of Ice?

I didn't like Lolita.

>Mhybe
I liked Memories of Ice overal more than Deadhouse Gates.