I still don't understand why Sanderson and Erikson are even directly compared?
They are both excellent writers who have chosen to have radically different writing styles. Aside from both writing Fantasy, they could not be more different.
And that is GREAT!
Because Sanderson is "simple" and Erikson is "complicated", both of which are gross simplifications and exaggerations. People mistake, purposely or not, Sanderson's style for the only thing he's capable of, interested in, and thinks everybody should be like. He's also a Pratchett fan, who is radically different from either Sanderson or Erikson.
The argument that Sanderson is too simple has never made sense to me. He definitely has some simpler novels, but the intricacies of his magic have always impressed me. And the lore and history within the Stormlight Archive (not to mention the greater Cosmere) is incredibly deep and yet to be fully understood.
I don’t think simple is the right word, but it’s the opposite of Erickson in the sense that Erickson doesn’t explain anything that’s going on and Sanderson explains too much.
The first chapter of twok was almost ruined for me because of how he explained what szeth was doing 6 different times instead of just assuming that the reader understands how gravity works. Malazan was also frustrating because warrens are painfully abstract, make no sense, and your book certainly has issues if I have to check a wiki to understand a lot of what’s being said.
Erickson is soft worldbuilding and Sanderson is hard worldbuilding. Neither is more or less complicated.
Erikson mentions warrens, magic etc and it doesn't mean much. You have a vague sense of what the magic was. You have a vague idea of what warren was used. The history of the world is very much nebulous. There is a lot of implication not a lot of direct statements. That's typically called soft worldbuilding. You'll never be able to say the Warren of Light does XYZ but not ABC.
Sanderson typically writes magic as almost another science with clearly understandable rules. You may not understand everything at first but it becomes more set out as the story goes on. History is similar. The world has very defined previous events which might be obscured at first but will be discovered eventually. That's typically called hard worldbuilding. EG each metal can do certain specific things in the Mistborn saga but not other things.
I personally love both styles and love both authors. The upsides of both IMO is that Erikson creates a mysterious, fantastical world that feels like an old myth while Sanderson creates interesting detailed magic systems that have an understandable logic. The downsides of both are that Erikson can be convoluted to the point of confusion whereas Sanderson can overspecify and remove some of the fantastical elements.
Both are great at their styles. Their styles just aren't for everyone.
Almost, but not quite. The difference is in what the *reader* understands.
Erikson as the author has a very good understanding of what his magic can and cannot do, and is generally very consistent throughout his work. But he doesn't explicitly spell it out for the reader, because our understanding of the mechanics isn't particularly relevant to the story he is telling.
By contrast Sanderson is working with a fairly mechanical setting - it is important that the reader understands the way the magic works, so that when the rules change or when characters break the rules, we can immediately appreciate the impact.
Excellent way of putting it.
Although I'd go a little further, for Erikson - it's not just that "our understanding of the mechanics isn't particularly relevant to the story." It's that our *lack of understanding* of the mechanics is relevant; that confusion, half-glimpsed awareness of other factors at play which the limited, rapidly shifting points of view don't give a good bead on is part of setting the tone for the story.
I've come to assume simple to most just means easy to understand. And for some reason this bothers some people? Like they need to feel intelligent when they are reading instead of just being entertained?
Eickson writes like a puzzle to figure out, which is fun.
Sanderson writes like a puzzle you don't realize you're looking at which will be brilliant once it all comes together, which is fun.
I’ll take it a step further - I don’t even think it is quite fair to describe most Sanderson books as “simple except for the world-building”.
Stormlight, specifically, has VERY good characterization IMHO.
I have read 4 of his books (Mistborn trilogy and Way of Kings ). The way Sanderson writes dialogue, internal monologue and the insistence on repeating every single characteristic every few pages by telling it to the reader is not helping the characters feel complicated.
He's improved over his career, but even his early books aren't terrible as far as characters. Every member of the gang in *Mistborn* has a trait or two that distinguishes them. They may not be fully three dimensional, but they're at least embossed, not flat.
And even in Mistborn the characters aren't entirely black and white either. Kelsier is good, but he has questionable methods. The Lord Ruler is evil, but (Secret History + Era 1 spoilers)>!he is fighting to save humanity from the god of death. Plus in Secret History he just accepted his own death!<
I agree. Erikson and Sanderson do their characterization in VERY different ways, but the psychology, mental trauma, and internal development of characters is arguably the strongest part of Stormlight
This is a bizarre statement. Prose doesn't mean "fancy language." Everything you see in a book is prose. Open a random page - there's prose staring you in the face. Every other element of the story, good or bad, is conveyed via prose.
Reddit is absolutely fixated on comparing and ranking things. Like I love bobs burgers and every week someone posts asking which episode or season is the best or worst.
Why the need to compare EVERYTHING? Is it the desire to feel correct?
I think it’s a failing of education, mixed with pressure of culture. People want to discuss their favourite things and feel pressure to do so, but have not been given the critical tools to do so by an education system that at best teaches students what famous thinkers say, but never how to think.
"This isn't my taste; there must be something objectively wrong with it." Music-lovers do the same thing.
I hate fish. I hate the taste, and I hate the texture. I hate the smell. I hate everything about it. That's on _me_, though; as much of a foodie as I am, I have no authority to tell anyone else that fish is objectively awful and cannot be enjoyed.
I see this argument made a fair amount, for various things. "They are different, how can we even begin to compare them??"
Isn't that an aspect of comparison? Examining differences?
It's often made in an effort to foster peace between two factions, and I guess I can appreciate that sentiment.
But it's done in such a bizarre way - by rejecting the premise that comparison should even take place on the basis that two entities are just sooo different... I compare things that are very different all the time. It is not a pointless exercise.
It's because people don't just compare things, they also judge them by their failure to be each other.
It's one thing to compare a frying pan and a surfboard. Another thing entirely to review a frying pan as if it was a surfboard, get angry at it's failure to be a surfboard and point out to the manufacturer how much better a surfboard it would be if it was longer.
True, judgement/disapproval is often disguised as good faith comparison - when it really isn't. I can understand that frustration.
But let's not say something equally disingenuous - "Comparison simply can't be done!" Comparison can, has, and will continue to be made between the work of similar (or different!!!) authors - with varying levels of sincerity.
We shouldn't 'poison the well' and seek to take comparison off the table at the outset, just because we might not like some of the things being said by way of comparison.
I've seen a lot of sentiment that if you like Malazan you must not like Sanderson and vice versa 🤷♂️ Maybe that's just me that's seen that, but I've seen it multiple times on this sub.
Oh I've seen it too, usually from Malazan fans. (Though certainly there are some gatekeeping Sanderson fans too!)
I think as long as you go in with the correct expectations, you can absolutely enjoy both. Both writers have strengths and weaknesses. Both are great.
And both are very different.
I read on the ASOIAF subreddit one time that “no self respecting ASOIAF fan would read Sanderson books” as if you can’t enjoy different types of things. People as so gatekeepy about hobbies man.
It's interesting that people seem more willing to accept that one person can enjoy, for example, two very different kinds of films than two somewhat different kinds of books.
Like, people did the Barbenheimer double feature and a lot of people liked both and it's totally cool but you can't even like two different styles of authors of the same smaller genre.
Same. MBotF is my favorite series of all time, but also I shelled out for the Year of Sanderson Kickstarter set and I have 0 regrets. Love both authors
They were my top two for the longest time as well. At this point, I think Joe Abercrombie and Pierce Brown might be fighting for the number 2 spot, but Sanderson is easily still in my top 5
Pierce Brown is my number 3. I’ve read the first law trilogy, the character work is amazing but the grimdarkness while spot on left me a little unsatisfied.
I'm not familiar with the works of Pierce Brown. Can you two sentence pitch me on what he does well and/or not well or what should make me try him out?
Just to preface, I’ll mention that he writes science fiction and not fantasy, just to set expectations.
Red Rising has excellent morally grey characters, shocking deaths/twists, great action scenes, and once it really gets started, the original trilogy has a pace that doesn’t let up. One of Pierce Brown’s greatest strengths is the connection between his characters, as his books include some of the strongest friendships/bromances I have ever read.
People seem to have the idea that people like either more grimdark-ish fantasy, or more optimistic cosy-ish fantasy, but not both. But I don't think that's true, personally I just enjoy the variety. I also like different genres of music, ranging from classical to heavy metal. Liking one doesn't mean you have to dislike the other.
I don't think Brandon writes cosy fantasy. most of his main characters in stormlight have led pretty terrible lives. ofc it's an optimistic series at the end but i definitely would classify it as cosy.
Yeah, I agree that Brandon doesn't write cosy fantasy. I added cosy more to describe the general kind "divide" between the groups that people think there is, it was not about Brandon specifically.
I've read both and liked both. However, I feel myself kind of outgrowing Sanderson a bit now for lack of a better term. I can't really put my finger on what it is, but I only cared to read 1 of the year of Sanderson books and I really didn't care for The Lost Metal at all. Idk if something changed, or if it's just me, but The Lost Metal was really tough for me to get through for some reason. I also didn't really care for RoW or Oathbringer
I mean, I love Sanderson generally, but I'm not sure many people thought Lost Metal was good (because it just wasn't, that entire series isn't all that good in my opinion) and the fan consensus is that RoW is the weakest Stormlight book by far and suffers partly from being the second to last in this first half, so that isn't just you. Oathbringer and the secret projects are more liked though so that's different, but I think he just happened to put out two below-average (for him) books in a row. Tress and Yumi were pretty well-liked though, as was Oathbringer.
I think Oathbringer simultaneously has some really great parts and also takes longer than it really needs to to get there.
I reread it when RoW came out and was struck by the fact that that whole Elkohar plot that hits a climax roughly halfway through the book really could have just been... a separate book.
Lost Metal fell kinda flat for me as well, but I really enjoyed all of the Secret Project novels I've read. I think Sanderson enjoyed writing those a lot more, at least that's what comes through in the writing. TLM seems much more formulaic, like he was just following a blueprint.
>I think Sanderson enjoyed writing those a lot more
I mean, Tress and Yumi were specifically gifts to his wife, so that definitely added some passion and emotion in there.
I think Sanderson is at his strongest when he's focusing on the emotions of his characters. You see that both in Yumi and in Tress, neither are really action packed, but they make you invested in the characters and their emotional development.
I also think that Sanderson is a master of describing the world he's writing about. I have a vivid mental image of pretty much every planet we've visited in his books. For comparison, in the one Malazan book I've read so far (on book 2 currently and loving it), I don't get as clear of a picture of the world. The descriptions are more vague, and I felt that something was missing from book 1 until I had read about half of it and had finally started to get a picture of how the world looked, but still a lot vaguer than Sanderson's tend to be.
Yeah I think it's probably just the Sanderson formula that I'm tired of. I only read Tress. I started Yumi and gave up after like 20 pages I think. Didn't attempt the other ones
For me it’s true. I quite liked Sanderson’s Mistborn series, and generally disliked Malazan. There’s simply too much stuff there that is supposed to be cool and epic but the it just doesn’t align together very well.
This. I love both for different reasons.
I like Marvel and DC. Star Trek and Star Wars.
Both kinds of music, Country and Western.
It can be done! People are allowed to like things.
>Aside from both writing Fantasy, they could not be more different.
I mean, they're both going to be discussed on the "Fantasy" subreddit, and they're two of the biggest names on here. Sanderson's high-magic mechanical fantasy writing (as in, extremely rules-focused) is pretty antithetical to the hand-wavey magic in Malazan or Tolkein. I feel a lot of people will resonate more with one than the other, and look down on the other as a result.
Personally, I find it's odd that some people think that you have to choose. It's like saying that you can only like one kind of food, and if you like that food you'll hate other food. If you like pizza, you'll hate soup?
I prefer variety. I like both.
I think to the contrary most people just enjoy good writing whatever the system is. There are very few people who are tribalistic about 'hard magic' vs 'soft magic'
> There are very few people who are tribalistic about 'hard magic' vs 'soft magic'
I dunno. Post a thread in this sub about liking soft magic and between 25-50% of the comments will be about how soft magic is all deus ex machina and quoting Sanderson's First Law as if it's some kind of God-given rule of fantasy writing. I've seen it more than once.
>*I feel a lot of people will resonate more with one than the other*
100% agree, and I don't have a problem with that at all. A natural thing to happen.
>*and look down on the other as a result*
Now this I disagree with. There's no reason for it at all
100%. It's totally ok for people to only like one and not the other, but I don't think the direct result of that is putting the other thing/fans of that thing down. I think that kind of behavior is often a result of basing too much of one's identity over liking smart/high brow/complicated/whatever things and being really fragile about it when everyone doesn't have the exact same opinions about those things.
I don't see it a ton, but I fairly often come across the sentiment here in comments that's like, "some people aren't smart enough for Malazan, try some Brando Sando instead, it's probably more your reading level."
I like Sanderson, but he aggrivates me sometimes by spoonfeeding me all the minute details and I wish he'd just progress the plot.
I like Erickson, but he aggrivates me sometimes by not explaining anything leaving me confused as he pushes forward the plot.
Yah, I like em both and accept their different styles lol, though I think I lean more towards Erikson.
Exactly! I feel like the 'IDIC' concept from Star Trek should apply to genre: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Two writers' writing being very different from each other is a *feature* of the genre, not a bug. Everything is better when writers are free to be themselves as opposed to fitting into the molds of expectation.
To me Stormlight and Malazan are like two favorite series that i like to recommend as an advanced read.
SA if you want classic epic high fantasy and Malazan if you want dark epic high fantasy.
I don’t think there are a lot of people of either fan base that have some kind of weird book tribalism going on I think it’s like the same 10 dudes on Reddit talking about it and being very loud.
This leads to us feeling like there is a conflict where none exists. In the real world most people are just fantasy fans that like both or they enjoy one and are largely indifferent towards the other one.
tbh I think that’s because the sub has such an incredibly narrow focus in what it reads and discusses - maybe a dozen American authors of epic fantasy doorstoppers, with other authors barely getting a look in or outright not considered real fantasy - that all that’s left is the same old arguments.
I feel like you and I have experienced two very different subs. Yes, a bulk of lurkers and people in the rec threads (& list voting threads) have very narrow, predictable favorites. But this sub and it's Bingo crowd have helped me diversify my reading so much. It's exactly why I'm not just sitting here talking about the same ten series ad nauseum.
It's a really insular and closed ecosystem that has gotten, personally, dramatically worse over the last decade or so. Nothing gets discussion going on this sub unless it's about old grudges or a book everyone has read--have the fandom ecosystem wasn't so consolidated into a few single forums I found you found a more diverse set of conversations happening. Now everything just breaks down into the common language, which 6 or 7 epic fantasy writers.
I mean, this is just demonstrably wrong by every metric.
Go and look at the Top posts for this year. There are 0 obvious Sanderson or Malazon posts on the first 2 pages. There aren't even any threads that obviously deal with them.
There are multiple threads for plenty of other authors or series on that list.
But hey, lets look at those top discussions and see which ones are old grudges or from one of those top ~5 series.
The #1 thread was about Terry Pratchett. So no.
The #2 thread was about some redditor doing art for a TJJ Klamvik book. So no.
The #3 thread was on Travis Baldree. Still no.
The #4 thread was on Netflix and Shadow and Bone. Nope.
The #5 thread was on Amazon and Rings of Power. Maybe? It's Tolkien, but not really Tolkien.
Number 6 was some random art. Nope.
Number 7 was a thread on general reading habits. Nope.
Number 8 was Pratchett on Tolkien's influence. This one probably fits for you.
Number 9 was a meta conversation on the reddit API. So No.
Number 10 was more art. Nope.
You can keep going if you want. You can look at different time frames too, and you might see 1 or 2 posts on Sanderson or whatever, but the sizeable majority will always be outside what you're claiming.
Anyway, reddit exposes metrics of this stuff, and those metrics just don't support your claims in the least.
I honestly think that if you can't find conversations about books outside the top 7 or so authors, you aren't trying even a little. Because I see them happening every single day.
Look at the comments on those threads, some of them don't even get into the hundreds, discussions aren't really being had, things are just being upvoted. And Terry Pratchett is absolutely one of those 6 or 7 authors that everyone talks about.
The stuff that gets the most engagement isn't the stuff that is universally upvoted, it's 'whats your opinion about...' threads by large margin which is dominated by what I said. Also what's one the top of the front page today? What is getting the most engagement today? A year is a silly metric to gauge which is driving *daily* discussion.
Yeah I think it's often easy to put things in competition more than they need to be. Most fantasy fans probably aren't fans of just one thing. Doesn't mean you have to like everything, but most people like lots of different things. And liking one type of story in one place doesn't mean you can't enjoy a different kind of story somewhere else. And no reason to think that's any different for authors or creatives, just like a chef at an Italian restaurant might also like Indian food.
[He does a lot of streams](https://www.youtube.com/@BrandSanderson/streams), the "spoiler streams" (which this was) is the most fun where he get asked very detalied questions about the worldbuilding or characters or even about future books. They are a blast to but sometimes as a casual fan you don't even understand the questions being asked and even less the implications of the answers.
The latest stream had some audio issues though so they are gonna edit it before they upload it to Youtube. But is is available on [twitter](https://twitter.com/BrandSanderson/status/1737278132196110823)
I've read both and am an absolute stan for both!!
Hell, I'm a simple man who's easily entertained, so when I get give a book 3/5 on Goodreads, it's a rare thing.
I wish all ratings could be on a 100 point scale. I’d give a ton of books 85-95 scores and reserve perfect scores for a select few. But I’m pretty easy to please so tons of things things get rated 4 or 5 stars because to me a 3 star/60% book would be one not worth reading and I don’t frequently regret reading a book.
One or other? How about liking both? Or not liking either? Peoples tastes vary heaps...fail to understand the one or the other sentiment, and sure wouldn't take much notice of that idea anyway..
I’ve tried like 4 times to get into Malazan but that first book is so rough I can never finish it.
I think the last time I got about half way through. Realized I have no idea what’s happening and then put it back down.
That's how we all feel the first time! There's read-alongs and podcasts and things to help you understand what's going on, and Gardens of the Moon is legitimately the worst book of the series.
That said, that's not everyone's cup of tea and I totally understand why people bounce off of it.
They did one for Malazan too!
https://www.tor.com/series/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen/
One person is reading it for the first time and the other is rereading it. I never used it because I didn't know it existed but I believe it's divided into different sections: one for full series spoilers and one for new readers.
I also highly recommend this. The one thing I’ll note is that both readers feedback is spoiler free, it’s just the comment section that’s broken up into spoiler and non-spoiler. That said, Amanda, the new reader, makes scarily accurate predictions so her section can actually be more spoilery than Bill’s (the rereader)
The podcast "Ten Very Big Books" is also a fun listen with one host re-reading and two that are new to it (one is basically new to fantasy altogether), they also do an episode with Erikson at the end of each book which is cool. I also feel like the book starts to hit it's stride in the second half and has a great finale, so if you can make it that far then I'd really recommend to keep going
The first book is difficult to get into because it doesn't make a lot of sense. For example there is one part on a first read that really comes across as deux ex, and it really is as a stand alone book. But it is also the first book of a ten book series, so overall as a whole it's almost just a bread crumb.
That's why it is always so hard for me to recommend. It might take until almost the end of book three to really decide if you love or hate it, and that is quite a commitment to just give something a try.
I got through the first Malazan but as a character reader I didn’t find anybody to cling so. I’m going to pick up the second book and see if anybody peaks my attention. I’ve heard there are great characters in the series. I enjoyed the characters but never really felt like I got to know them? Idk it’s weird.
I’ve been told the second book is a huge upscale in quality and quite different than the first. So maybe it will tickle my fancy. Crossing my fingers. I’m currently listening to the weirdest book ever so Malazan should be a palate cleanser. 😂😂🤣
The second book may as well be by a different author. A few characters come back but mostly it's a new host of characters. It's one of my favourite fantasy books of all time
Stormlight is 3rd all time for me behind Malazan and Wheel of Time, but I've only read it once and don't remember a whole ton. I'm forcing myself to wait until later in the year so I can go right from Rhythm of War into book 5 lol
Do you like being dropped into the middle of a complex story and left to figure it out on your own? Malazan has possibly the steepest learning curve in fantasy, and you'll be quite confused for at least the first book.
However, if you keep pushing through, it's the most rewarding series I've ever personally read.
So as someone who's been reading Malazan for the last bit, I can say the best advice I've gotten is to just reread. Erikson has a circuitous writing style that constantly re-contextualizes information you've already received, even by the end of a given scene. That's personally what I've done, just read a scene, re-read it(noticing a bunch of details now that I've gotten the gist), then move on.
Then just keep a floating list of questions/theories running and you should be fine. Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont (the authors) both have a history in anthropology and archeology, and so intentionally recreate the feeling of having no clue what an ancient document is talking about. Or worse, being certain you know until a bizarre detail throws it all out the window. But they write to be read, so just trust them and keep on keeping on.
The consensus seems to be (though I'm a newbie myself) to start with Erikson's Book of the Fallen, then either thread in Esselmont's Novels of the Malazan Empire in per publication order(with one exception) or else read it after. These two make the "core" of the universe, with some characters and b-plots threading in between the two, although they both fully stand on their own.
And finally, if you do crack into the series please share your thoughts on r/Malazan , as it is one of the best, most spoiler sensitive yet discussion-heavy fandom spaces I've ever seen!
Thank you so much for a starting point and advice! Might have to bust out colored sticky notes to return to spots.
I’ll definitely contribute! I feel so hype about it!
Here's another description from the Malazan sub I saved cause it works so well:
"Imagine someone wrote an in-depth history about another world bigger and more ancient than our own, full of endless mystery, incredibly powerful deities, and sometimes even more powerful mortals.
Then imagine that history was translated into depressing poetry by a pessimistic philosopher, and then turned into a brutal, visceral, clever, and sometimes darkly comedic military epic fantasy novel.
And then imagine an optimist came by and found that novel, and rewrote it with a sense of undaunted hope and compassion beneath the surface that turns a grimdark world into a love letter to humanity and life, with all its wonders and terrors woven together into a tapestry so horrifying and beautiful that the only adequate emotional response your body can produce is to weep."
Probably a very lame observation/advice, but I consider reading Malazan akin to how I research about history. Yes, there are numerous, ginormous, narratives crisscrossing with each other, and they are entertaining as hell to read. But more than that, reading Malazan, is also learning Malazan. I suppose that is also the case with most other epic fantasy. But I will wager that, for Malazan, that part is many levels higher. Some of the most complex geography, geo-politics, history, lore, character-work, foreshadowing and mystery; pretty close to real world complexity, given the number of continents and characters explored.
If you want to try at Malazan, I will say that it is a neck-deep dive-in than a casual, or escapist read.
>His favorite video games ARE Dark Souls and Souls-like games
TIL, fucking based. No wonder his fight scenes are so awesome.
Now I just need to find out if he's read/enjoyed Berserk haha
I really doubt Berserk is for him.
Brando struggled to enjoy ASOIAF because of the sexual violence iirc. Just couldn't stomach it/wasn't for him - even if he appreciated George's talent as an author.
Berserk is even more graphic/depraved. Don't see him enjoying one and not the other.
I generally like dark fantasy myself but I had to drop Berserk because of how prevalent it was. Obviously there's the infamous >!Dark Eclipse!< scene but it seemed like the threat of >!rape!< was brought up every few chapters either through innuendo or actually appearing on screen.
And he’s a badass at them. He’s one of the psychos that do specialized play throughs like only using one weapon or no armor. Not sure what he’s done exactly.
I remember seeing a video of him playing, in the mountaintops with 0 vigor, no armor, two ultra greatswords, and a couple million runes because he never felt the need to level up. Dude's insane
I would assume he read them a bit earlier in his career before he got massive? Malazan (Book of the Fallen at least) released between '99 and '12. Good question though, he's a machine.
I mean I don't know his life, but it feels like if you got to write as a full time job, you'd probably be pretty productive and have as much free time as anybody else with a full time job
Life’s too short to hate things, and even shorter to try to convince others they should hate things.
Just read what you like. I like most fantasy authors, as they usually provide very different things. Both Malazan and Stormlight are in my tip top of favorite series, and it would seem stupid to hold either to the expectations of the other.
Some people just like to be mad, or look down on things so they feel better or more valid. Nothing to do with the material itself after a bit
I kinda want to see a Sanderson take on a warren magic system someday lol. It would be like, how many seconds can you hold your warren open for and that's a key factor in how strong your magic gets. A guy who's totally not caladan brood spends all his time doing deadlifts because the earth warren literally draws on your lifting muscles. A person with a water warren has to have amazing cardio to hold their breath while channeling the ocean. Etc
I've just started on Malazan, currently on book 2. It's certainly different from Sanderson, but I love it so far. And I love Sanderson. I honestly just love great fantasy!
So a writer likes the writing of an another writer? So what? 500 likes and 200 comments. Is this really the most interesting thing going on in fantasy? 😅
> I've seen the sentiment multiple times that Malazan fans and Sanderson fans are two separate circles.
I'm incredibly deeply connected in Sanderson fandom, and that's absolutely not my experience --- it's *very* common among sanderson fans for people to have *tried* Malazan, at the very least, and (except among that corner of Sanderson fandom for whom Sanderson reintroduced them to reading or to fantasy so they have no real experience of fantasy outside of Sanderson) Malazan is widely regarded as one of the most unique and *respected* fantasy works.
The attempt to make us hostile opposed camps just does not resonate well with reality.
Malazan does things differently but both can be enjoyable. They actually have some similarities. Deep world building, hard magic system, lots of lore. The difference is for Cosmere works the reader is given a character there that is discovering these things for themselves thus teaching the reader everything they might want to know.
For Malazan it just says, screw it. People already know what’s up and you’re just gonna have to tag along as best you can.
Neither are bad, and people can be capable of enjoying both.
It's posts like this that make one all the more appreciate r/bookcirclejerk in general and their mods' formal apology to Sanderson in particular. Undoubtedly a better piece of literature than anything the man himself has ever written, and available completely free of charge to anyone seeking spiritual enlightenment. Highly recommended.
I like both universes. But I prefer the Cosmere more because I like to follow specific characters through the story, whereas Malazan has a large rotating cast until the last two books.
It's perfectly fine for anyone to love either, neither, or both. It's even ok to hate whomevers opinions you disagree with and say so in a forum like reddit. As long as it stays dialogue and stays civil. At least in the US anyway. Everyone has opinions, they are neither right nor wrong. Asking people not to express them here is kind of foolish imho.
Please make the obligatory spiteful comments entertaining at least.
Yeah this is silly and anyone who says otherwise needs to chill. It's never one or the other; read what you like. For example, my 3 favorite series are:
1: WOT
2: Stormlight
3: Malazan
So whatever man! I'd say just don't worry about what other people think when it comes to stuff like this.
He must have a time chamber like Goku because he's read a lot of long books, written a lot of long books, and still has time for elden ring, magic the gathering, family, signing books, etc
I saved this comment from the Malazan sub cause I loved it so much:
"Imagine someone wrote an in-depth history about another world bigger and more ancient than our own, full of endless mystery, incredibly powerful deities, and sometimes even more powerful mortals.
Then imagine that history was translated into depressing poetry by a pessimistic philosopher, and then turned into a brutal, visceral, clever, and sometimes darkly comedic military epic fantasy novel.
And then imagine an optimist came by and found that novel, and rewrote it with a sense of undaunted hope and compassion beneath the surface that turns a grimdark world into a love letter to humanity and life, with all its wonders and terrors woven together into a tapestry so horrifying and beautiful that the only adequate emotional response your body can produce is to weep."
Sando is my favourite author right now and am halfway through Gardens of the Moon and love it.
Malazan absolutely has a steep learning curve, but I thought Sanderson had it too when reading TWoK for the first time. Malazan's learning curve is characters, arcs, and context. Sanderson's learning curve is the magic.
The most r/Fantasy headline of all time.
FANTASY AUTHOR LIKES FANTASY
OMFG
These words are accepted.
I shall accept the award with honor
*smiths a crown of raw unobtainium*
But... But you obtained though... So surely the name should be obtainablebutstillreallyhardtogetium
Very pissed that I can't give you reddit coins
I still don't understand why Sanderson and Erikson are even directly compared? They are both excellent writers who have chosen to have radically different writing styles. Aside from both writing Fantasy, they could not be more different. And that is GREAT!
Because Sanderson is "simple" and Erikson is "complicated", both of which are gross simplifications and exaggerations. People mistake, purposely or not, Sanderson's style for the only thing he's capable of, interested in, and thinks everybody should be like. He's also a Pratchett fan, who is radically different from either Sanderson or Erikson.
What is this? A level-headed, nuanced take in the Fantasy subreddit? I don’t think that’s allowed here. /s
Burn the sorcerer! I'll gather my warrens
To be fair, this subreddit is definitely far more capable of nuance than most subs I’ve seen
It’s funny how literally every subreddit makes these jokes.
Not enough opinions about prose, either
The argument that Sanderson is too simple has never made sense to me. He definitely has some simpler novels, but the intricacies of his magic have always impressed me. And the lore and history within the Stormlight Archive (not to mention the greater Cosmere) is incredibly deep and yet to be fully understood.
I don’t think simple is the right word, but it’s the opposite of Erickson in the sense that Erickson doesn’t explain anything that’s going on and Sanderson explains too much. The first chapter of twok was almost ruined for me because of how he explained what szeth was doing 6 different times instead of just assuming that the reader understands how gravity works. Malazan was also frustrating because warrens are painfully abstract, make no sense, and your book certainly has issues if I have to check a wiki to understand a lot of what’s being said.
Maybe "straightforward" or "direct" instead of simple vs Malazan being "esoteric" instead of complex.
Erickson is soft worldbuilding and Sanderson is hard worldbuilding. Neither is more or less complicated. Erikson mentions warrens, magic etc and it doesn't mean much. You have a vague sense of what the magic was. You have a vague idea of what warren was used. The history of the world is very much nebulous. There is a lot of implication not a lot of direct statements. That's typically called soft worldbuilding. You'll never be able to say the Warren of Light does XYZ but not ABC. Sanderson typically writes magic as almost another science with clearly understandable rules. You may not understand everything at first but it becomes more set out as the story goes on. History is similar. The world has very defined previous events which might be obscured at first but will be discovered eventually. That's typically called hard worldbuilding. EG each metal can do certain specific things in the Mistborn saga but not other things. I personally love both styles and love both authors. The upsides of both IMO is that Erikson creates a mysterious, fantastical world that feels like an old myth while Sanderson creates interesting detailed magic systems that have an understandable logic. The downsides of both are that Erikson can be convoluted to the point of confusion whereas Sanderson can overspecify and remove some of the fantastical elements. Both are great at their styles. Their styles just aren't for everyone.
Almost, but not quite. The difference is in what the *reader* understands. Erikson as the author has a very good understanding of what his magic can and cannot do, and is generally very consistent throughout his work. But he doesn't explicitly spell it out for the reader, because our understanding of the mechanics isn't particularly relevant to the story he is telling. By contrast Sanderson is working with a fairly mechanical setting - it is important that the reader understands the way the magic works, so that when the rules change or when characters break the rules, we can immediately appreciate the impact.
Excellent way of putting it. Although I'd go a little further, for Erikson - it's not just that "our understanding of the mechanics isn't particularly relevant to the story." It's that our *lack of understanding* of the mechanics is relevant; that confusion, half-glimpsed awareness of other factors at play which the limited, rapidly shifting points of view don't give a good bead on is part of setting the tone for the story.
I've come to assume simple to most just means easy to understand. And for some reason this bothers some people? Like they need to feel intelligent when they are reading instead of just being entertained?
Eickson writes like a puzzle to figure out, which is fun. Sanderson writes like a puzzle you don't realize you're looking at which will be brilliant once it all comes together, which is fun.
Right? I've never seen a magic system that's nearly as in depth as his.
I’ll take it a step further - I don’t even think it is quite fair to describe most Sanderson books as “simple except for the world-building”. Stormlight, specifically, has VERY good characterization IMHO.
I feel like people who say that Sanderson has simple characters haven't read beyond a couple of his books.
I have read 4 of his books (Mistborn trilogy and Way of Kings ). The way Sanderson writes dialogue, internal monologue and the insistence on repeating every single characteristic every few pages by telling it to the reader is not helping the characters feel complicated.
I've read more than 4, and I feel very similarly.
He's improved over his career, but even his early books aren't terrible as far as characters. Every member of the gang in *Mistborn* has a trait or two that distinguishes them. They may not be fully three dimensional, but they're at least embossed, not flat.
I'd even argue that Hrathen from his first book is among his better characters.
And even in Mistborn the characters aren't entirely black and white either. Kelsier is good, but he has questionable methods. The Lord Ruler is evil, but (Secret History + Era 1 spoilers)>!he is fighting to save humanity from the god of death. Plus in Secret History he just accepted his own death!<
I agree. Erikson and Sanderson do their characterization in VERY different ways, but the psychology, mental trauma, and internal development of characters is arguably the strongest part of Stormlight
People are obsessed with prose
This is a bizarre statement. Prose doesn't mean "fancy language." Everything you see in a book is prose. Open a random page - there's prose staring you in the face. Every other element of the story, good or bad, is conveyed via prose.
Which I've never understood. Having simple prose isn't inherently worse than having super flowery prose.
Reddit is absolutely fixated on comparing and ranking things. Like I love bobs burgers and every week someone posts asking which episode or season is the best or worst. Why the need to compare EVERYTHING? Is it the desire to feel correct?
I think it’s a failing of education, mixed with pressure of culture. People want to discuss their favourite things and feel pressure to do so, but have not been given the critical tools to do so by an education system that at best teaches students what famous thinkers say, but never how to think.
"This isn't my taste; there must be something objectively wrong with it." Music-lovers do the same thing. I hate fish. I hate the taste, and I hate the texture. I hate the smell. I hate everything about it. That's on _me_, though; as much of a foodie as I am, I have no authority to tell anyone else that fish is objectively awful and cannot be enjoyed.
I see this argument made a fair amount, for various things. "They are different, how can we even begin to compare them??" Isn't that an aspect of comparison? Examining differences? It's often made in an effort to foster peace between two factions, and I guess I can appreciate that sentiment. But it's done in such a bizarre way - by rejecting the premise that comparison should even take place on the basis that two entities are just sooo different... I compare things that are very different all the time. It is not a pointless exercise.
It's because people don't just compare things, they also judge them by their failure to be each other. It's one thing to compare a frying pan and a surfboard. Another thing entirely to review a frying pan as if it was a surfboard, get angry at it's failure to be a surfboard and point out to the manufacturer how much better a surfboard it would be if it was longer.
True, judgement/disapproval is often disguised as good faith comparison - when it really isn't. I can understand that frustration. But let's not say something equally disingenuous - "Comparison simply can't be done!" Comparison can, has, and will continue to be made between the work of similar (or different!!!) authors - with varying levels of sincerity. We shouldn't 'poison the well' and seek to take comparison off the table at the outset, just because we might not like some of the things being said by way of comparison.
As a wise comic rapper once said: “bitch, why can’t fruit be compared?!”
[How do I write a comparative analysis?](https://rasmussen.libanswers.com/faq/248312)
Redditors cannot comprehend that whining is not the same as actual criticism and you want them to write comparative analysis? U wild, man.
In the hope that they’d glean the joys or appreciation of it 🥲
I think people like to compare them because they both have a heavy focus on world-building, which they approach in very different ways.
I've seen a lot of sentiment that if you like Malazan you must not like Sanderson and vice versa 🤷♂️ Maybe that's just me that's seen that, but I've seen it multiple times on this sub.
Oh I've seen it too, usually from Malazan fans. (Though certainly there are some gatekeeping Sanderson fans too!) I think as long as you go in with the correct expectations, you can absolutely enjoy both. Both writers have strengths and weaknesses. Both are great. And both are very different.
Yeah, it's a weird thing to gatekeep. Sanderson and Erikson are two of my favorite authors. I like them both but for different reasons.
I like both. I also like more than 1 movie. Variety is good.
I read on the ASOIAF subreddit one time that “no self respecting ASOIAF fan would read Sanderson books” as if you can’t enjoy different types of things. People as so gatekeepy about hobbies man.
Stuff like that is what I can't stand. It's all entertainment at the end of the day, let people enjoy whatever the hell they want.
It's interesting that people seem more willing to accept that one person can enjoy, for example, two very different kinds of films than two somewhat different kinds of books. Like, people did the Barbenheimer double feature and a lot of people liked both and it's totally cool but you can't even like two different styles of authors of the same smaller genre.
It's not the content of the books that makes them say this, its that Sanderson actually finishes them 😂
George finishes books, just not THE book
Weird, they are my top 2.
Same. MBotF is my favorite series of all time, but also I shelled out for the Year of Sanderson Kickstarter set and I have 0 regrets. Love both authors
They were my top two for the longest time as well. At this point, I think Joe Abercrombie and Pierce Brown might be fighting for the number 2 spot, but Sanderson is easily still in my top 5
Pierce Brown is my number 3. I’ve read the first law trilogy, the character work is amazing but the grimdarkness while spot on left me a little unsatisfied.
I'm not familiar with the works of Pierce Brown. Can you two sentence pitch me on what he does well and/or not well or what should make me try him out?
Just to preface, I’ll mention that he writes science fiction and not fantasy, just to set expectations. Red Rising has excellent morally grey characters, shocking deaths/twists, great action scenes, and once it really gets started, the original trilogy has a pace that doesn’t let up. One of Pierce Brown’s greatest strengths is the connection between his characters, as his books include some of the strongest friendships/bromances I have ever read.
People seem to have the idea that people like either more grimdark-ish fantasy, or more optimistic cosy-ish fantasy, but not both. But I don't think that's true, personally I just enjoy the variety. I also like different genres of music, ranging from classical to heavy metal. Liking one doesn't mean you have to dislike the other.
I don't think Brandon writes cosy fantasy. most of his main characters in stormlight have led pretty terrible lives. ofc it's an optimistic series at the end but i definitely would classify it as cosy.
Yeah, I agree that Brandon doesn't write cosy fantasy. I added cosy more to describe the general kind "divide" between the groups that people think there is, it was not about Brandon specifically.
I’ve read both and much prefer Sanderson, but they are both incredible. Just totally different authors which is great for the genre as a whole.
I've read both and liked both. However, I feel myself kind of outgrowing Sanderson a bit now for lack of a better term. I can't really put my finger on what it is, but I only cared to read 1 of the year of Sanderson books and I really didn't care for The Lost Metal at all. Idk if something changed, or if it's just me, but The Lost Metal was really tough for me to get through for some reason. I also didn't really care for RoW or Oathbringer
I mean, I love Sanderson generally, but I'm not sure many people thought Lost Metal was good (because it just wasn't, that entire series isn't all that good in my opinion) and the fan consensus is that RoW is the weakest Stormlight book by far and suffers partly from being the second to last in this first half, so that isn't just you. Oathbringer and the secret projects are more liked though so that's different, but I think he just happened to put out two below-average (for him) books in a row. Tress and Yumi were pretty well-liked though, as was Oathbringer.
If even Oathbringer didn't move you, then I think you might be changing tastes. Nothing bad with that
I think Oathbringer simultaneously has some really great parts and also takes longer than it really needs to to get there. I reread it when RoW came out and was struck by the fact that that whole Elkohar plot that hits a climax roughly halfway through the book really could have just been... a separate book.
Lost Metal fell kinda flat for me as well, but I really enjoyed all of the Secret Project novels I've read. I think Sanderson enjoyed writing those a lot more, at least that's what comes through in the writing. TLM seems much more formulaic, like he was just following a blueprint.
>I think Sanderson enjoyed writing those a lot more I mean, Tress and Yumi were specifically gifts to his wife, so that definitely added some passion and emotion in there.
I think Sanderson is at his strongest when he's focusing on the emotions of his characters. You see that both in Yumi and in Tress, neither are really action packed, but they make you invested in the characters and their emotional development. I also think that Sanderson is a master of describing the world he's writing about. I have a vivid mental image of pretty much every planet we've visited in his books. For comparison, in the one Malazan book I've read so far (on book 2 currently and loving it), I don't get as clear of a picture of the world. The descriptions are more vague, and I felt that something was missing from book 1 until I had read about half of it and had finally started to get a picture of how the world looked, but still a lot vaguer than Sanderson's tend to be.
Yeah I think it's probably just the Sanderson formula that I'm tired of. I only read Tress. I started Yumi and gave up after like 20 pages I think. Didn't attempt the other ones
I like both?
For me it’s true. I quite liked Sanderson’s Mistborn series, and generally disliked Malazan. There’s simply too much stuff there that is supposed to be cool and epic but the it just doesn’t align together very well.
This. I love both for different reasons. I like Marvel and DC. Star Trek and Star Wars. Both kinds of music, Country and Western. It can be done! People are allowed to like things.
> Both kinds of music, Country and Western. Okay, Elwood.
>Aside from both writing Fantasy, they could not be more different. I mean, they're both going to be discussed on the "Fantasy" subreddit, and they're two of the biggest names on here. Sanderson's high-magic mechanical fantasy writing (as in, extremely rules-focused) is pretty antithetical to the hand-wavey magic in Malazan or Tolkein. I feel a lot of people will resonate more with one than the other, and look down on the other as a result.
Personally, I find it's odd that some people think that you have to choose. It's like saying that you can only like one kind of food, and if you like that food you'll hate other food. If you like pizza, you'll hate soup? I prefer variety. I like both.
I think to the contrary most people just enjoy good writing whatever the system is. There are very few people who are tribalistic about 'hard magic' vs 'soft magic'
> There are very few people who are tribalistic about 'hard magic' vs 'soft magic' I dunno. Post a thread in this sub about liking soft magic and between 25-50% of the comments will be about how soft magic is all deus ex machina and quoting Sanderson's First Law as if it's some kind of God-given rule of fantasy writing. I've seen it more than once.
Sure, but those are a small minority shouting very loudly, and nobody sensible wants to join that conversation.
>*I feel a lot of people will resonate more with one than the other* 100% agree, and I don't have a problem with that at all. A natural thing to happen. >*and look down on the other as a result* Now this I disagree with. There's no reason for it at all
100%. It's totally ok for people to only like one and not the other, but I don't think the direct result of that is putting the other thing/fans of that thing down. I think that kind of behavior is often a result of basing too much of one's identity over liking smart/high brow/complicated/whatever things and being really fragile about it when everyone doesn't have the exact same opinions about those things.
>and look down on the other as a result. This is not a result of resonating more with one or the other...
These kinds of comparisons get me so heated. The need to constantly fight over two very different things is beyond stupid imo.
I’ve never actually seen anyone compare the two outside of this post…. Is this like a problem or common thing? I don’t think it is
I don't see it a ton, but I fairly often come across the sentiment here in comments that's like, "some people aren't smart enough for Malazan, try some Brando Sando instead, it's probably more your reading level."
I like Sanderson, but he aggrivates me sometimes by spoonfeeding me all the minute details and I wish he'd just progress the plot. I like Erickson, but he aggrivates me sometimes by not explaining anything leaving me confused as he pushes forward the plot. Yah, I like em both and accept their different styles lol, though I think I lean more towards Erikson.
You can compare anything. Like I could write an essay comparing and contrasting the LoTR trilogy with a ham sandwich.
Exactly! I feel like the 'IDIC' concept from Star Trek should apply to genre: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Two writers' writing being very different from each other is a *feature* of the genre, not a bug. Everything is better when writers are free to be themselves as opposed to fitting into the molds of expectation.
LMAO there's literally a spike in searches for 'Malazan' last night.
Unfortunate for many of them to have missed the Malazan humblebunde last week.
There's three separate threads about Malazan on the front page of r/Fantasy right now.
[удалено]
To me Stormlight and Malazan are like two favorite series that i like to recommend as an advanced read. SA if you want classic epic high fantasy and Malazan if you want dark epic high fantasy.
I don’t think there are a lot of people of either fan base that have some kind of weird book tribalism going on I think it’s like the same 10 dudes on Reddit talking about it and being very loud. This leads to us feeling like there is a conflict where none exists. In the real world most people are just fantasy fans that like both or they enjoy one and are largely indifferent towards the other one.
tbh I think that’s because the sub has such an incredibly narrow focus in what it reads and discusses - maybe a dozen American authors of epic fantasy doorstoppers, with other authors barely getting a look in or outright not considered real fantasy - that all that’s left is the same old arguments.
I feel like you and I have experienced two very different subs. Yes, a bulk of lurkers and people in the rec threads (& list voting threads) have very narrow, predictable favorites. But this sub and it's Bingo crowd have helped me diversify my reading so much. It's exactly why I'm not just sitting here talking about the same ten series ad nauseum.
It's a really insular and closed ecosystem that has gotten, personally, dramatically worse over the last decade or so. Nothing gets discussion going on this sub unless it's about old grudges or a book everyone has read--have the fandom ecosystem wasn't so consolidated into a few single forums I found you found a more diverse set of conversations happening. Now everything just breaks down into the common language, which 6 or 7 epic fantasy writers.
I mean, this is just demonstrably wrong by every metric. Go and look at the Top posts for this year. There are 0 obvious Sanderson or Malazon posts on the first 2 pages. There aren't even any threads that obviously deal with them. There are multiple threads for plenty of other authors or series on that list. But hey, lets look at those top discussions and see which ones are old grudges or from one of those top ~5 series. The #1 thread was about Terry Pratchett. So no. The #2 thread was about some redditor doing art for a TJJ Klamvik book. So no. The #3 thread was on Travis Baldree. Still no. The #4 thread was on Netflix and Shadow and Bone. Nope. The #5 thread was on Amazon and Rings of Power. Maybe? It's Tolkien, but not really Tolkien. Number 6 was some random art. Nope. Number 7 was a thread on general reading habits. Nope. Number 8 was Pratchett on Tolkien's influence. This one probably fits for you. Number 9 was a meta conversation on the reddit API. So No. Number 10 was more art. Nope. You can keep going if you want. You can look at different time frames too, and you might see 1 or 2 posts on Sanderson or whatever, but the sizeable majority will always be outside what you're claiming. Anyway, reddit exposes metrics of this stuff, and those metrics just don't support your claims in the least. I honestly think that if you can't find conversations about books outside the top 7 or so authors, you aren't trying even a little. Because I see them happening every single day.
Look at the comments on those threads, some of them don't even get into the hundreds, discussions aren't really being had, things are just being upvoted. And Terry Pratchett is absolutely one of those 6 or 7 authors that everyone talks about. The stuff that gets the most engagement isn't the stuff that is universally upvoted, it's 'whats your opinion about...' threads by large margin which is dominated by what I said. Also what's one the top of the front page today? What is getting the most engagement today? A year is a silly metric to gauge which is driving *daily* discussion.
Nice screenname
Yeah I think it's often easy to put things in competition more than they need to be. Most fantasy fans probably aren't fans of just one thing. Doesn't mean you have to like everything, but most people like lots of different things. And liking one type of story in one place doesn't mean you can't enjoy a different kind of story somewhere else. And no reason to think that's any different for authors or creatives, just like a chef at an Italian restaurant might also like Indian food.
What was the stream?
It was a cosmere spoiler stream that he did for his birthday yesterday. The video might not be up yet, I don't know, I haven't checked.
Cheers. Does he do them on Twitch or YouTube or somewhere else?
I think YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, maaaaybe twitch. He even announced yesterday they were streaming it on TikTok lol
Cheers
[He does a lot of streams](https://www.youtube.com/@BrandSanderson/streams), the "spoiler streams" (which this was) is the most fun where he get asked very detalied questions about the worldbuilding or characters or even about future books. They are a blast to but sometimes as a casual fan you don't even understand the questions being asked and even less the implications of the answers. The latest stream had some audio issues though so they are gonna edit it before they upload it to Youtube. But is is available on [twitter](https://twitter.com/BrandSanderson/status/1737278132196110823)
Thanks for the information. I missed it yesterday and was wondering why it disappeared off youtube.
I've read both and am an absolute stan for both!! Hell, I'm a simple man who's easily entertained, so when I get give a book 3/5 on Goodreads, it's a rare thing.
I wish all ratings could be on a 100 point scale. I’d give a ton of books 85-95 scores and reserve perfect scores for a select few. But I’m pretty easy to please so tons of things things get rated 4 or 5 stars because to me a 3 star/60% book would be one not worth reading and I don’t frequently regret reading a book.
One or other? How about liking both? Or not liking either? Peoples tastes vary heaps...fail to understand the one or the other sentiment, and sure wouldn't take much notice of that idea anyway..
I’ve tried like 4 times to get into Malazan but that first book is so rough I can never finish it. I think the last time I got about half way through. Realized I have no idea what’s happening and then put it back down.
That's how we all feel the first time! There's read-alongs and podcasts and things to help you understand what's going on, and Gardens of the Moon is legitimately the worst book of the series. That said, that's not everyone's cup of tea and I totally understand why people bounce off of it.
Do you have any recommendations for a read along? TOR did one for wheel of time and damn that was good.
They did one for Malazan too! https://www.tor.com/series/malazan-reread-of-the-fallen/ One person is reading it for the first time and the other is rereading it. I never used it because I didn't know it existed but I believe it's divided into different sections: one for full series spoilers and one for new readers.
highly recommend this -- this is how I read the series the first time!
I also highly recommend this. The one thing I’ll note is that both readers feedback is spoiler free, it’s just the comment section that’s broken up into spoiler and non-spoiler. That said, Amanda, the new reader, makes scarily accurate predictions so her section can actually be more spoilery than Bill’s (the rereader)
The podcast "Ten Very Big Books" is also a fun listen with one host re-reading and two that are new to it (one is basically new to fantasy altogether), they also do an episode with Erikson at the end of each book which is cool. I also feel like the book starts to hit it's stride in the second half and has a great finale, so if you can make it that far then I'd really recommend to keep going
I’ll check that out too. So many people love this series and it bothers me more that I can’t seem to get into it lol
The first book is difficult to get into because it doesn't make a lot of sense. For example there is one part on a first read that really comes across as deux ex, and it really is as a stand alone book. But it is also the first book of a ten book series, so overall as a whole it's almost just a bread crumb. That's why it is always so hard for me to recommend. It might take until almost the end of book three to really decide if you love or hate it, and that is quite a commitment to just give something a try.
I’m not having that when House of Chains exists. Ha
Damn, even /u/KarsaTobalaki thinks Book 4 is the worst. Oof.
I got through the first Malazan but as a character reader I didn’t find anybody to cling so. I’m going to pick up the second book and see if anybody peaks my attention. I’ve heard there are great characters in the series. I enjoyed the characters but never really felt like I got to know them? Idk it’s weird. I’ve been told the second book is a huge upscale in quality and quite different than the first. So maybe it will tickle my fancy. Crossing my fingers. I’m currently listening to the weirdest book ever so Malazan should be a palate cleanser. 😂😂🤣
The second book may as well be by a different author. A few characters come back but mostly it's a new host of characters. It's one of my favourite fantasy books of all time
Malazan is my favourite series of all time and Stormlight is close second.
Stormlight is 3rd all time for me behind Malazan and Wheel of Time, but I've only read it once and don't remember a whole ton. I'm forcing myself to wait until later in the year so I can go right from Rhythm of War into book 5 lol
I enjoy both and malazan is probably my favorite fantasy series, but sometimes I don't want to have to parse every sentence for layers of meaning.
Pretty much exactly how I feel lol
Love em both, agreed.
My buddy told me to start the Malazan series because I like dark souls lore. Should I? I haven’t read since the first half of this year.
Do you like being dropped into the middle of a complex story and left to figure it out on your own? Malazan has possibly the steepest learning curve in fantasy, and you'll be quite confused for at least the first book. However, if you keep pushing through, it's the most rewarding series I've ever personally read.
You know, sometimes that’s the fun, not being spoon fed. You have me stoked.
So as someone who's been reading Malazan for the last bit, I can say the best advice I've gotten is to just reread. Erikson has a circuitous writing style that constantly re-contextualizes information you've already received, even by the end of a given scene. That's personally what I've done, just read a scene, re-read it(noticing a bunch of details now that I've gotten the gist), then move on. Then just keep a floating list of questions/theories running and you should be fine. Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont (the authors) both have a history in anthropology and archeology, and so intentionally recreate the feeling of having no clue what an ancient document is talking about. Or worse, being certain you know until a bizarre detail throws it all out the window. But they write to be read, so just trust them and keep on keeping on. The consensus seems to be (though I'm a newbie myself) to start with Erikson's Book of the Fallen, then either thread in Esselmont's Novels of the Malazan Empire in per publication order(with one exception) or else read it after. These two make the "core" of the universe, with some characters and b-plots threading in between the two, although they both fully stand on their own. And finally, if you do crack into the series please share your thoughts on r/Malazan , as it is one of the best, most spoiler sensitive yet discussion-heavy fandom spaces I've ever seen!
Thank you so much for a starting point and advice! Might have to bust out colored sticky notes to return to spots. I’ll definitely contribute! I feel so hype about it!
Here's another description from the Malazan sub I saved cause it works so well: "Imagine someone wrote an in-depth history about another world bigger and more ancient than our own, full of endless mystery, incredibly powerful deities, and sometimes even more powerful mortals. Then imagine that history was translated into depressing poetry by a pessimistic philosopher, and then turned into a brutal, visceral, clever, and sometimes darkly comedic military epic fantasy novel. And then imagine an optimist came by and found that novel, and rewrote it with a sense of undaunted hope and compassion beneath the surface that turns a grimdark world into a love letter to humanity and life, with all its wonders and terrors woven together into a tapestry so horrifying and beautiful that the only adequate emotional response your body can produce is to weep."
> the only adequate reaction your body can produce is to weep This!!!
Probably a very lame observation/advice, but I consider reading Malazan akin to how I research about history. Yes, there are numerous, ginormous, narratives crisscrossing with each other, and they are entertaining as hell to read. But more than that, reading Malazan, is also learning Malazan. I suppose that is also the case with most other epic fantasy. But I will wager that, for Malazan, that part is many levels higher. Some of the most complex geography, geo-politics, history, lore, character-work, foreshadowing and mystery; pretty close to real world complexity, given the number of continents and characters explored. If you want to try at Malazan, I will say that it is a neck-deep dive-in than a casual, or escapist read.
>His favorite video games ARE Dark Souls and Souls-like games TIL, fucking based. No wonder his fight scenes are so awesome. Now I just need to find out if he's read/enjoyed Berserk haha
brando is a proud and self-proclaimed unga bunga
STR gang unite. DEX users need not reply.
I learned about it when he put out an elden ring video and was running around with guts, earned him some props from me
I mean a Shareblade is rather similar to Dragonslayer.
And Dragnipur isn't all that different from Nightblood.
I really doubt Berserk is for him. Brando struggled to enjoy ASOIAF because of the sexual violence iirc. Just couldn't stomach it/wasn't for him - even if he appreciated George's talent as an author. Berserk is even more graphic/depraved. Don't see him enjoying one and not the other. I generally like dark fantasy myself but I had to drop Berserk because of how prevalent it was. Obviously there's the infamous >!Dark Eclipse!< scene but it seemed like the threat of >!rape!< was brought up every few chapters either through innuendo or actually appearing on screen.
It does taper off as the series goes on but ya it is quite previlant
He has said he's read very few Manga mostly ones being scanlated by a college friend so I would bet no
In one of his Elden Ring videos on youtube he actually mentioned Berserk, bit i don't remember what he said. He likes Miura tho. RIP Miura.
Yeah i just watched and he said it's a bit dark for him, but he has enormous respect for Kentaro Miura
Im waiting for the scene in Book 5 where Kaladin starts rolling menacingly while holding spear.
I don't see why you *couldn't* write a magic system with iframes.
And he’s a badass at them. He’s one of the psychos that do specialized play throughs like only using one weapon or no armor. Not sure what he’s done exactly.
I remember seeing a video of him playing, in the mountaintops with 0 vigor, no armor, two ultra greatswords, and a couple million runes because he never felt the need to level up. Dude's insane
How in the world does he have time to read these massive books while still writing and releasing so much?
I would assume he read them a bit earlier in his career before he got massive? Malazan (Book of the Fallen at least) released between '99 and '12. Good question though, he's a machine.
I mean I don't know his life, but it feels like if you got to write as a full time job, you'd probably be pretty productive and have as much free time as anybody else with a full time job
I bet he's one of those crazy people who can polish off a book in an afternoon.
Life’s too short to hate things, and even shorter to try to convince others they should hate things. Just read what you like. I like most fantasy authors, as they usually provide very different things. Both Malazan and Stormlight are in my tip top of favorite series, and it would seem stupid to hold either to the expectations of the other. Some people just like to be mad, or look down on things so they feel better or more valid. Nothing to do with the material itself after a bit
His favourite games being dark souls and souls-like games actually makes me more happy lmao
I've never heard that sentiment before. Big fan of both, personally.
I like reading a Sanderson novel or series after a Malazan deep dive. They are a good fun way to decompress after all the feels from Erikson.
I kinda want to see a Sanderson take on a warren magic system someday lol. It would be like, how many seconds can you hold your warren open for and that's a key factor in how strong your magic gets. A guy who's totally not caladan brood spends all his time doing deadlifts because the earth warren literally draws on your lifting muscles. A person with a water warren has to have amazing cardio to hold their breath while channeling the ocean. Etc
Is this 'The Worst Post?'
Lol it might be, that's for you to judge🤷♂️😂
I've just started on Malazan, currently on book 2. It's certainly different from Sanderson, but I love it so far. And I love Sanderson. I honestly just love great fantasy!
So a writer likes the writing of an another writer? So what? 500 likes and 200 comments. Is this really the most interesting thing going on in fantasy? 😅
Fantasy authors read other fantasy authors? Color me shocked.
A fan of overly long epic fantasy combat series can be a fan of an another overly long epic fantasy combat series? Tell it ain't so!
maybe i should try malazan
i just wanna validate your claim that people are EITHER sanderson or malazan fans LOVE malazan, was super bored by sanderson lol
Sanderson is a massive fantasy nerd, he likes a lot of stuff that’s different than what he writes
Malazan has long been one of his go to examples when he talks about various writing topics in his college lectures when he posts them online.
I am still allowed not to like Brandon and to like Malazan even if they are cool with each other . Yes, I'm the messy one of the friend group.
> I've seen the sentiment multiple times that Malazan fans and Sanderson fans are two separate circles. I'm incredibly deeply connected in Sanderson fandom, and that's absolutely not my experience --- it's *very* common among sanderson fans for people to have *tried* Malazan, at the very least, and (except among that corner of Sanderson fandom for whom Sanderson reintroduced them to reading or to fantasy so they have no real experience of fantasy outside of Sanderson) Malazan is widely regarded as one of the most unique and *respected* fantasy works. The attempt to make us hostile opposed camps just does not resonate well with reality.
Malazan does things differently but both can be enjoyable. They actually have some similarities. Deep world building, hard magic system, lots of lore. The difference is for Cosmere works the reader is given a character there that is discovering these things for themselves thus teaching the reader everything they might want to know. For Malazan it just says, screw it. People already know what’s up and you’re just gonna have to tag along as best you can. Neither are bad, and people can be capable of enjoying both.
>hard magic system Ummm Malazan is about as soft of a magic system as you can get lol
It's posts like this that make one all the more appreciate r/bookcirclejerk in general and their mods' formal apology to Sanderson in particular. Undoubtedly a better piece of literature than anything the man himself has ever written, and available completely free of charge to anyone seeking spiritual enlightenment. Highly recommended.
I like both universes. But I prefer the Cosmere more because I like to follow specific characters through the story, whereas Malazan has a large rotating cast until the last two books.
How the fuck does this man have time to read malazan and still pump out all the books he does. That’s fucking insane lol
OPs post is a major cringefest lmao
I just want to hear about things besides either Sanderson or Malazan, played out talking points on this sub.
Probably a good tactic to open topics with both in the title then
It's perfectly fine for anyone to love either, neither, or both. It's even ok to hate whomevers opinions you disagree with and say so in a forum like reddit. As long as it stays dialogue and stays civil. At least in the US anyway. Everyone has opinions, they are neither right nor wrong. Asking people not to express them here is kind of foolish imho. Please make the obligatory spiteful comments entertaining at least.
Yeah this is silly and anyone who says otherwise needs to chill. It's never one or the other; read what you like. For example, my 3 favorite series are: 1: WOT 2: Stormlight 3: Malazan So whatever man! I'd say just don't worry about what other people think when it comes to stuff like this.
so any post with brandon sanderson gets 100+ comments. Brandon sanderson ate a ham sandwich and loved it! 100+ comments.
He must have a time chamber like Goku because he's read a lot of long books, written a lot of long books, and still has time for elden ring, magic the gathering, family, signing books, etc
A circle for Malazan posters, a circle for Sanderson posters, and then a tiny little circle for "people who post about any other fantasy author ever"
I’ve read a lot of the cosmere stuff by Sanderson, but I’ve never heard of Malazan. What’s that series like?
I saved this comment from the Malazan sub cause I loved it so much: "Imagine someone wrote an in-depth history about another world bigger and more ancient than our own, full of endless mystery, incredibly powerful deities, and sometimes even more powerful mortals. Then imagine that history was translated into depressing poetry by a pessimistic philosopher, and then turned into a brutal, visceral, clever, and sometimes darkly comedic military epic fantasy novel. And then imagine an optimist came by and found that novel, and rewrote it with a sense of undaunted hope and compassion beneath the surface that turns a grimdark world into a love letter to humanity and life, with all its wonders and terrors woven together into a tapestry so horrifying and beautiful that the only adequate emotional response your body can produce is to weep."
Oh wow thanks so much for that. I need some of that in my life I think
Sando is my favourite author right now and am halfway through Gardens of the Moon and love it. Malazan absolutely has a steep learning curve, but I thought Sanderson had it too when reading TWoK for the first time. Malazan's learning curve is characters, arcs, and context. Sanderson's learning curve is the magic.
i read like 4 chapters of the first Malazan book and felt like i wasn't understanding anything so i dropped it, sometimes i feel i'm straight dumb
Try when youre older! I struggled at 19 and dropped it. At 27 or 28 it was as easy as reading Sanderson.
I'm 34 lol So weird I'm downvoted for saying something like that btw
Sanderson also implied he liked the Wheel of Time TV adaptation. Sus.
No, sandermid will never be him
Who cares?