Steven Erikson is an epic fantasy writer whose Malazan series I'm a great fan of. The books in many ways read more like history than typical fantasy. Magic follows rules, the conflict between civilization and 'barbarians' is not one of good against evil, and while there are gods they're just as fallen as the rest of us.
Alan Jacobs over at the American scene contrasts Erikson negatively to Tolkein:
In a number of letters Tolkien responds to the very common view that The Lord of the Rings is about power by simply denying it. Rather, he says, the book is about “the Fall, Mortality, and the Machine.” To seek for power (including technological power: “the Machine”) is one of the ways we respond to our fallen and mortal state. But there are other ways: for instance, art. Even those who are not mortal, but are fallen — in Tolkien’s world, the Elves — are driven by the impulse to make beautiful things, and indeed their desire to make beautiful things can cause them to fall…
Tolkien was also deeply interested in the varieties of friendship, and the ways in which friendship can be a consolation and a comfort in a broken world…
All this is not to say that Tolkien doesn't have a great deal to say about power, only that power is not at the very heart of his concerns, and his treatment of it only makes complete sense in the context of these other fields and values.
By contrast, Steven Erikson, as best I can tell from Gardens of the Moon, does not appear to be interested in anything other than the many varieties of power: physical, psychological, magical, political, spiritual. In his world there is no art, unless you consider as art certain varieties of magic — say, shifting a person’s soul from a human body to a wooden marionette. But this is really just the exertion of a (temporary) power over death…
Now, a contemporary writer may not share Tolkien’s vision of what makes for a good life. Fair enough; but in that case I’d like them to give me some sense of what their ideals are. Of these exhaustive and exhausting anatomies of power — it’s Foucault’s world; they’re just playing in it — I have had more than enough.
He similarly critiques George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire and it is worth reading the whole thing, but I’m more interested in his discussion of Erikson. The Malazan books do have definite flaws, but here Jacobs goes after their strengths which makes for a more interesting argument. I think Erikson does believe in something other than power: the ideal in the books is the vibrant, chaotic, diverse city of Darujistan which is at the center of Gardens of the Moon and a sometimes longed for home in other books.
That said, I think it is fair to say they are books about the problem of power. I’d say it’s also about the problems underlying various civilizations and how they can, and cannot, overcome them. I wouldn’t have a degree in political science if power didn’t fascinate me, so obviously this is my sort of thing. But if you want to read about a world where interests and cultures clash more regularly than good an evil, one which subverts many of the racial dynamics of classical fantasy, and one in which even gods learn the risks of meddling in the affairs of mortals, Malazan might be for you.
That said, it is not for everyone and if Alan Jacobs review scares you off, than you probably would not enjoy the series in the first place. The books are by no means perfect, following all the characters and world details is nigh impossible, some of the baddies aren’t that inspiring, and the occasional bit with sex and female characters interested in it sometimes seems more fan-fiction-esque. However, I think the virtues of the series outweigh the flaws and Jacobs’ review should help you sort out if its strengths are of interest.
Comments