George R.R. Martin/Robert Jordan [Brandon Sanderson]/Terry Goodkind/Steven Erikson

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by mgbino

Labeling Erikson's books as some type of core series was a very odd move on the part of TOR.

Well that's certainly one opinion. But I've talked to many fans who suggested the ten-installment Book of the Fallen series could be read as one complete arc. I don't pretend to know myself, of course. Double-digit novel-length installments is waaaay beyond what I'm willing to endure in the name of story-telling.

[Geralt]

What I and many others noticed among the people who read almost exclusively fantasy is that when it comes to Malazan a peculiar thing happens. Some people like the series from the book 1. Those people tend to enjoy odd number books, #3, #5 in the series.
Other people really start liking the series from book 2, and they end up liking even number books.
It's quite weird but this seems to be the pattern. At one point the plots obviously converge, but it definitely happens for the first half of the series.
It is also worth mentioning that Book 1 was written about 10 years before the book 2, and anybody who has read them can easily tell that they are quite different. I personally enjoyed the heck out of book 2, while book 1 didn't really impress me much. Imo, Erikson really got better at writing in those 10 years.

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well that's certainly one opinion. But I've talked to many fans who suggested the ten-installment Book of the Fallen series could be read as one complete arc. I don't pretend to know myself, of course. Double-digit novel-length installments is waaaay beyond what I'm willing to endure in the name of story-telling.

You could only read the 10 Erikson books and get the majority of the story. But in any mega series you could probably skip a book here and there and still manage to catch up. You'll just be saying "huh, I guess that happened" quite a bit. There is no way to get around reading Assail though. It's the conclusion of the story. It's even advertised as the finale of the Malazan series.

That being said, I liked Malazan enough to keep reading all the books, but I would really only recommend it to someone who goes " A 16 book series, each book 1000 pages, and a nearly incomprehensible plot without a glossary? Sold!"

[Bricorn]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Daniel Abraham is an excellent choice considering his own writing style as well. But would GRRM be ok with anyone doing it? Im not so sure.

Well, for it to happen he'd have to be dead, so he'd be unlikely to object, wouldn't he.

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by Bricorn

Well, for it to happen he'd have to be dead, so he'd be unlikely to object, wouldn't he.

Unless he comes back as un-GRRM.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by Bricorn

Well, for it to happen he'd have to be dead, so he'd be unlikely to object, wouldn't he.

He could leave a clause in his will. Bam. No ASOIAF books by Daniel Abraham or anyone else.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by mgbino

You could only read the 10 Erikson books and get the majority of the story. But in any mega series you could probably skip a book here and there and still manage to catch up. You'll just be saying "huh, I guess that happened" quite a bit. There is no way to get around reading Assail though. It's the conclusion of the story. It's even advertised as the finale of the Malazan series.

That being said, I liked Malazan enough to keep reading all the books, but I would really only recommend it to someone who goes " A 16 book series, each book 1000 pages, and a nearly incomprehensible plot without a glossary? Sold!"

Sorry, but Eriksons 10 books are in my opinion a completed series. Assail is merely the conclusion of Esslemonts stories who happened to pick up some story elements from Erikson. And I thought it is a bad conclusion and probably the worst of Esslemonts books. If you only read Erikson, you have a complete story.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by Geralt

He could leave a clause in his will. Bam. No ASOIAF books by Daniel Abraham or anyone else.

I don't think that helps that much. Maybe this is possible, but it would be very difficult, since the heirs have then all the rights and a dead man can't go to court.

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Sorry, but Eriksons 10 books are in my opinion a completed series. Assail is merely the conclusion of Esslemonts stories who happened to pick up some story elements from Erikson. And I thought it is a bad conclusion and probably the worst of Esslemonts books. If you only read Erikson, you have a complete story.

I just think that if you skip ICE's Malazan books you miss out on chunks of important developments. I think if I had only read Erikson, I wouldn't have gotten the full experience. That being said, I know Malazan fans are sort of split on this, so we probably just have to agree to disagree.

[mewmartigan]

Originally Posted by Geralt

What I and many others noticed among the people who read almost exclusively fantasy is that when it comes to Malazan a peculiar thing happens. Some people like the series from the book 1. Those people tend to enjoy odd number books, #3, #5 in the series.
Other people really start liking the series from book 2, and they end up liking even number books.
It's quite weird but this seems to be the pattern. At one point the plots obviously converge, but it definitely happens for the first half of the series.
It is also worth mentioning that Book 1 was written about 10 years before the book 2, and anybody who has read them can easily tell that they are quite different. I personally enjoyed the heck out of book 2, while book 1 didn't really impress me much. Imo, Erikson really got better at writing in those 10 years.

I really liked the Book of the Fallen and for the record I did not read any of the Esselmont books in-between.

I wonder if the odd/even book preference is because of the characters. Until everything comes together near the end, odd books follow one thread and a host of characters while even books follow a second thread with a second host of characters.

I actually enjoyed all the books and count books 2 and 3 as among the most depressing I've read, haha. The whole series is definitely darker than most fantasy but 2 and 3 were a step above.

[wayspooled]

Originally Posted by mgbino

I'd say to give it a chance past the prologue. While the Wheel of Time, as a whole, has a lot flaws, there are parts of it that are incredible. Once Jordan got in his groove (probably books 2-6), he wrote some damn fine fantasy. Not saying you'll like it, but there is a reason why it's one of the most popular fantasy works ever.

disclaimer: It might be my great enjoyment of the WoT series informing this, but couple comments.

Since I have tended to go back and reread the series from the beginning everytime Jordan put out a new book (for awhile anyway), I've reread books 1-10 about 8 times. What turns a lot of people off and what I've seen referred to as sag, was to me: just extra detail Jordan was adding that wasn't necessary, but was interesting. It makes the stories rich... Since he was such a world painter and word-smith, I never minded. I never even noticed until I read critiques of his wordiness. It wasn't to me. I understood the reference to the BS School of Writing. Nothing like that. (In any of the referenced authors btw) What I minded was when each book ended. He could have made them twice as thick as far as I was concerned. People used to reading the critical path only writers, I don't think enjoy so much the forays into side stories. Not necessary side stories, just good writing to be wallowed in... hehe....

Also - I never, ever have bothered to read that little prologue story at the beginning of book one. I don't know who would understand this but, I prefer my stories 1st person and right now. Hard to explain.

[GlennD]

I think the WoT's reputation also suffers because of the publication timeline. That middle "slow" period that people talk about was when there was a volume coming out every two years, and Jordan seemed to have a habit of introducing a lot of plot lines and resolving (some of) them in the next book. It was almost like each two books should have been a single volume. It was frustrating at the time to read the newest book, and find out nothing had been resolved, and you had to wait almost two years to read the next one. Anyone who doesn't re-read the whole thing is naturally going to remember the frustration and annoyance during that period.

That's far less of an issue for someone reading it now for the first time - you can just enjoy the detail that Wayspooled talks about and not worry about what is going to be resolved in the next couple hundred pages. You never have to be frustrated by a break in the story.

[DrNefario]

You could be right about that. My colleague who is re-reading the whole series is now on book 11 and says he didn't feel there was a slump, so maybe it was just that we were waiting an increasingly long time for decreasing amounts of plot progression that made them feel so slow.

[DiapDealer]

Trust me: I would notice a slow-down of plot-progression that spanned multiple books regardless of whether I read them straight through or with gaps between. Treading water is treading water; in a six book or twenty-six book series.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

You could be right about that. My colleague who is re-reading the whole series is now on book 11 and says he didn't feel there was a slump, so maybe it was just that we were waiting an increasingly long time for decreasing amounts of plot progression that made them feel so slow.

I read them all (Or listened, actually) in one go after they were all published, and there was definitely a slump. No way anyone could miss it. But of course, do you like the world and the characters, then you will still enjoy them.