Is epic-length fantasy epic Deadhouse Gates the second of ten or the last of two?

You don’t read Deadhouse Gates to read Deadhouse Gates. You read it because you just read Gardens of the Moon and you’re about to read, uh…hold on, let me go look up the next book. Memories of Ice. You read it because you’re reading Steven Erikson’s bloated drawn-out Malazan series and this is the second book of, good lord, ten? There are ten of these?


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2018/06/28/is-epic-length-fantasy-epic-deadhouse-gates-the-second-of-ten-or-the-last-of-two/

If you were to read the ensuing eight books, and then loop back around, which is something I sort of did (I actually just read the first five books and then came back and restarted the series when it had ended), especially if you read them in direct succession (as I did, the second time around), I think you would be a lot more impressed by his plotting. That it only seems middling right now is, I think, an artifact of there being so very much going on and his not easing you into it with the sort of exposition that one might traditionally expect for a completely alien setting this dense. But my god, the layering and foreshadowing and intricate webs being weaved in these books are just staggering. I think it’s one of the best book series ever written and certainly the best epic fantasy series to date.

But I can totally understand not being up for that. I read around 150-200 pages a day with most books, sometimes a bit more, but the Malazan Book of the Fallen is dense enough that it significantly slowed that and between that and the shortest book in the series (Gardens of the Moon) being over 600 pages and the longest more like 1100 the whole thing took me around four months of dedicating every bit of my reading time to it - and I was in a slow period at work so I could snatch some time to read then too, which I normally can’t.

Harsh, but I can’t fault your analysis. One point where we do agree is the theme of convergence. You could reduce every single one of his novels to the basic concept of characters converging into a single moment. I’ve been motivated to read through all of his books, including the ones with grindingly slow starts, by the promise of an eventual convergence that makes it all worthwhile.

Also, FWIW, Memories of Ice isn’t really a direct followup to the storylines in Deadhouse Gates. Across the series Erikson tells stories in I think something like three major parts of the world with largely separate casts of characters, plus at least one major flashback into events of the past. (Look, it’s been a while and it’s a lot to keep in your head.) That isn’t to say that he doesn’t revisit characters and storylines, because he definitely does, just that it’s not usually in the very next book.

So…yeah, I wouldn’t necessarily keep reading unless it were with the intent of finishing the whole thing. I think Deadhouse Gates, for me at least, is the entry with the most compelling single storyline - the Chain of Dogs, which you don’t name in the review but do call out as being the best part - and from there forward there are still individually compelling stories, for sure, but the big draw is the larger narrative being woven.

IIRC, Memories of Ice actually takes place concurrently with Deadhouse Gates for the most part, explaining some of the odder “deus ex machina” moments as characters in different parts of the world scheme and collaborate. A few others are explained by flashback sequences even further down.

AKA, yes, there may be ten books in the series, but it’s essentially a single cohesive work of staggering complexity and ambition. That definitely stumbles over itself sometimes. Maybe a lot. But I’m utterly in it for the sheer maddened brazenness of its creation.

I’ll probably respond a little more thoroughly later on, but one other thought for now: as someone who is more less utterly bereft of a visual imagination (and never has a “picture in his head” of the characters he reads about), Erikson’s paucity of character descriptions literally never struck me. I mean that. Completely missed that in my read-through of the series.

Perhaps, then, due to my more or less exclusive focus on the characters as sources of dialogue and drama and decisions, then, they did feel more differentiated to me, but then again, I virtually never read character-focused fiction, so what is an outstanding work of characterization for me may be an embarrassing child’s pitiful attempt in the eyes of a more erudite reader :)

Tehol and Bugg have a distinct narrative voice, but you don’t meet them until book 5 or 6 or something. Until then, they’re all pretty much the same. I slogged my way through 8 of the 10 books (and even also one of the ones written by the other dude), but I ultimately just gave up. There are some really interesting ideas in there. (A whole race of sentient creatures that are basically tyrannosaurs with swords for arms.) And even some interesting characters eventually, but every book is a slog for about 600 pages. And they’re all unpleasant. Memories of Ice has an army of cannibals, including a troop of women who slit soldiers’ throats and rape them as they’re dying trying to impregnate themselves on the final ejaculate. That’s a real plot point. The warrens become a muddle that Erickson tries to save by descending into surrealism, but it doesn’t work. They’re just a confusing muddle that you have to bushwhack through in search of coherent plot. The Bridgeburners… excuse me Bonehunters… basically become gods, which totally undermines his project of writing military fantasy from the common soldiers’ point of view. And his apocalyptic environmental vision is eclipsed by excess of prose. It’s not the worst thing ever written, but it kind of soured me on multi-volume epics. Give me a nice standalone fantasy any day. OTOH, Seth Dickenson is putting out a sequel to The Traitor Baru Cormorant later this year, which was one of the best things I’ve read in the last decade…

I particularly enjoyed the part where you fan-ficked Fredo from the Godfather movies into Lord of the Rings. He totally would have taken the ring and gone off to get laid in Cuba.

Ah, I didn’t think of that. I knew Memories of Ice was concurrent with events back in Genabackis, but it didn’t occur to me how it might add a new layer to stuff in Deadhouse Gates. I can see that being where Erikson sets up some of the stuff with that magic trade guild, and whatever Quick Ben was supposed to be doing, and maybe some of the out of left field stuff with Shadowthrone or Icarium’s father. A lot of that just felt so random. Not to mention the eventual Laseen encounter. Ugh, I hated that. I’m guessing Memories of Ice gives it more context. I certainly feel like it needed it.

That said, I really don’t want to go back to Genabackis for 800 pages of meanwhile. :( What’s more, since the Chain of Dogs ended and it’s going to come down to a siege at Aren, I don’t want to back up and wait a whole book to find out what happens. I think my main curiosity is to see how the relationship between Felisin and her sister plays out, especially given the reveal about Baudin (I liked his character! His death was probably the only moment where I felt any degree of emotional investment). And the next step of the Felisin/Tavore relationship is presumably the siege at Aren.

And by the way, I’m really glad you got me to read these, Armando. It’s not really my thing, but I love exploring outside my comfort zone. Despite my criticisms, I had a really good time. I can see why these are successful, and I’m glad to have a sense for what they actually are. Thank you!

I have to admit reading these made me even more curious to read the Brandon Sanderson Mistborn books that Alex Chapman sent me.

Nah, not at all. Different people have different priorities and expectations and criteria. You would probably be bored to tears by some of the stuff I read! At least Deadhouse Gates is accessible. It’s a good time, it’s solid escapism, and – heck, I’ll say it – it’s fun. There. I hope you’re happy. You made me use the F-word.

I’m wavering between thinking that’s dumb and that’s awesome. I’m leaning awesome.

Ha! Okay, that’s a typo I might need to leave in there for a while.

-Tom

Heh, you’re making some assumptions. Events in the Malazan world don’t always go in the predictable pattern.

And I consider Memories of Ice one of my favorite books of the series.

Erikson’s weakness is prose, and he doesn’t really get a handle on his issues until book five or so. Then he finally realized he could write in paragraphs shorter than a page. A good copy editor would have helped a lot in the earlier books.

I’ve been struggling to read this series for about six years. People on this forum and elsewhere (my brother and nephew) swear by them. “Epic at a level never seen. The best fantasy series of all time.”

I’m halfway through Memories of Ice. As I read these, I just feel stupid. Events just don’t seem to connect, even in the same scenes. I agree with Tom’s assessment of the characters. I couldn’t form a picture of most of them in my head. I guess a movie wouldn’t wreck anything for me.

Then I move onto another book. Tom mentions Mistborn series. Sentences connect. Characters come alive. Even denser books like Lavondyss, or anything by Virginia Wolf or James Joyce I can follow. I feel less stupid reading these, knowing that if I can decode Ulysses, I should be able to decode Ericson. I become inspired again, read a few more chapters. The cycle continues.

I’ll get through them some day.

Yeah, I think the series is brilliant, but his prose is definitely a weak point. Characterization is probably also up there.

Well, this isn’t a weird review. On one side, yeah, this doesn’t really look for me, specially if the prose is so pedestrian for such a long series.

On the other side, people’s comments here make me think I might enjoy the plotting and sheer absurdity of scale.

What to do? Well, maybe read the first book and reconsider :)

Just keep in mind that Gardens of the Moon was written well in advance of the rest of the series and is not necessarily the experience you would have with the other books. It’s good, and it’s important to the overall narrative, but Deadhouse Gates is pretty much the inflection point for having a fair sense of whether the series would be for you.

It is honestly probably my favorite fantasy epic of all-time. I can totally see how it could be hard for people to get into, but it absolutely does it for me!

As @tomchick and @ArmandoPenblade were discussing upthread, a lot really depends on what you look for and enjoy in a book!

Tom stop being the “why didn’t they ride the eagles to Mount doom guy”. By which I mean “don’t be the guy asking the obvious question”, but rather “don’t be the guy who knows better who asks the obvious question”. By which I mean “Tolkien explained, why, and you knew that. And I can understand the explanation being unsatisfactory, but it’s there”. And. . . ok I grant you at this point the nature of the Deadhouse is not clear in fact.

It’s not the same as entering a warren, though. When people talk about using the Deadhouse for travel, they’re not simply talking about “I access Serc so I can sort of fly over those mountains” (Serc is the “path of the sky warren”, FWIW). Also, when people talk about using it for travel, most of them are guessing out of their asses and that’s important to keep in mind. There are a lot of people in the Malazan universe who think they know shit but, well, they don’t. It will take a lot of reading to get to what truths you get though. Needless to say, the Azath houses are really complex and are far more powerful than “My Wizard casts flight!”.

Erickson writes a lot of wonderful characters but you frequently only get to spend little slices with them in a given book, which is what it is. I don’t agree he writes everyone in the same voice. He’s not Scalzi, although neither is he Martin or Gaiman (somewhere in between, too bored to try and pinpoint where). Yes, there’s a lot of similar voice. Sometimes, it’s a cultural thing (by which I meant folks from a given culture will sound the same, but not necessarily the same as folks from another; and no it’s not as richly drawn as Martin in this respect either). You haven’t met that many peoples yet, honestly. Also, really, Kruppe sounds the same as everybody? I will fucking cut you Tom, I swear.

I can’t imagine you finishing the series.

Also, half* of the things Erickson started to establish - in terms of “mechanics” such as they are - in Gardens should be completely ignored, apropos of nothing.

  • I made the number up. But seriously, as @malkav11 notes it was written way before the rest of the series (and in fact was originally conceived as a pilot for a BBC series I believe). And he just sort of changes his mind on some stuff. E.g. the Imass are not “anathema to sorcery” (Otataral ore is though, as you see in Deadhouse).

I have a shameful confession: I never finished the Malazan Book of the Fallen despite loving the series to bits.

During university, a friend at a boardgaming club basically thrust Gardens of the Moon and Deadhouse Gates into my hands: “Dude, you’ve got to read these”. After first 200 pages of the harshest and least coherent in medias res opening I’ve ever seen, I was determined to never again take any book recommendations from him. But there was something there, and then the chain of dogs really hit me like a ton of bricks.

Every time a new book came out, like clockwork unlike with some other fantasy series, I’d re-read all the previous ones and then the new one. Until the second to last book. I bought it, decided that I really didn’t have time to re-read all the old ones again and thought I could just start reading that book as-is. It felt wrong. “I know, I’ll just wait for the last book to come out, and then I can do all 10 in one go”. That was 9 years ago, and I still haven’t found the time to go back.

But damn if this isn’t some of the finest fantasy worldbuilding around. It’s so uncompromisingly alien, and on top of that the quantity has a quality all its own.

It’s one of those things. It’s one of the finest reading experiences I have ever had in my life, and yet I can’t recommend it widely or without caveats because it is so demanding in both time and headspace that I can’t imagine most people being in a position to appreciate it.

I will join you in the shameful confession club: (maybe a SAMEful confession?): I too, have not finished all 10. I keep losing track for a couple of years and rereading the whole series to refamiliarize myself with it. Tom’s review is actually inspiring another stab at it. I can’t wait to read Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice again; they’re both so fucking excellent.

I’ll second @malkav11 and note that while GotM gives a very good example of the sort of “Here is my entire universe, deal with it” strident refusal to ever tell-not-show anything to the reader that Erikson is infamous for, and certainly does give you a taste for his excellent capacity for creating fascinating and epic convergences of events and people, Deadhouse Gates and the Chain of Dogs storyline we’ve been discussing in the thread are perhaps the best portrait of the books’ quality in my eyes, rich with goofy boots-on-the-ground army-tactical goodness, harrowing depictions of the darkness and gravity of the world of the books, and of course magi-political shenanigans pulling the strings of it all.

For @tomchick, I really appreciate you slogging through the two books my Recommendation required, especially in a genre that’s not really to your taste, and for giving them a fair shot despite all that. Your thoughts on them often did take me by surprise, to be honest, but I also can’t necessarily say that I disagree with anything you say outright (or at least, I recognize how someone with a different viewpoint, set of expectations, and history as a reader than myself might arrive at your conclusions). If nothing else, it’ll give me a chance to better hone my recommendations for the series in the future.

This one does strike me as very odd, though, but then again, anyone who’s read more than ten of my posts on here is probably all too familiar with my love affair with ludicrously purple prose. But for someone like me, bereft of the capacity to imagine any sight, sound, or smell, I find his twisting, dense passages hold a very particular and fascinating sort of beauty that I can’t get enough of. There are so many turns of phrase and descriptors and moments of clever dialogue that hold a special place in my heart from this series! Certainly it’s something that gets better with time (see above discussions around the derivation of GotM), but I never found issue with it.

But mostly,

This is what draws me back to the series again and again. I grew up with Tolkien as my first serious fantasy series, and a part of me thrilled at his flowery, unhurried descriptions of placid, foggy countrysides cloaking histories untold. Erikson seems to have read that same thing and thought to himself, “I can do you one better, old man: these histories gonna get fuckin told.”

It’s a series where the relevant timeline extends tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of years into the past, and events and people from the dimmest, earliest epochs of the world’s history repeatedly arise to importance and relevance during the course of the series. Truly a world where those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, at least in part because oftentimes, revenants from the past will claw their way out of an ancient crypt and ensorcell you to live out their dread ambitions at long last.

Every stone covers a mystery, every sand dune heaps overtop a long-forgotten battlement, every desert chokes an ancient sea, and every race and empire is bound by chains wrought by their forebears at the dawn of time. The ancient is alive in well in the world of Malazan, and there’s at least two enormous armies of undead avengers intent on butchering it straight into the dirt, goddammit.

As all this living, vengeful history, and all these complicated, overwhelmed people, and all these myriad, grasping empires slowly coalesce like pieces on an enormous chessboard, manipulated by gods and otherworldly powers, one might for a moment think that Erikson will stumble, reach too far, and shoot on past interesting storytelling into the decrepit art of textbook-writing. But then you remember that said history informs a vibrant and complicated present, and that said people hold convictions true in their hearts and are capable of great competence and bravery, and that said empires are lead by fallible men and women (and other things), and that most of all, those gods and otherworldly powers are themselves entirely dependent on the mortals they seek to control so utterly, and that even they are not fully outside the sword’s reach, and you realize that no, Erikson is busy laying the groundwork for a deeply human story amidst all the magical artillery and apocalyptic prophecies and continent-and-millennia-spanning convergences.

And that’s why it’s my favorite series, unfinished (for me) though it may be.

I think Erikson is an okay writer with occasional flashes of something better, certainly not howlingly awful like some folks who somehow regardless sell millions of every novel they crap out. But he’s not someone whose prose is a thing of wonder in itself (like say, Gene Wolfe) and it was probably the biggest obstacle to my getting invested in the books - a surmountable one, obviously.

Ian C Esslemont, though… I did not keep reading his adjuncts to the series.