OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

So, I go back and forth on my feelings for these books. I can never seem to stop reading them, so that is a definite plus. No matter how bogged down and lost I might feel, I always keep reading. More than anything, they seem to capture the epic fantasy essence similar to Dom 3 or vice versa.

At the same time, there are moments where I am reading and completely lost. I am on Reaper's Gale to date, and making some good progress. But I find Erikson's constant introduction of characters and vague descriptions somewhat tiresome.

Any other fans?

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I like them and have read all up to Reaper's Gale, waiting for it to be sold in small paperback format

I agree in that I am mixed on them, and I tend to think the first couple were the best. I like the introduction of new characters, and recycling of old ones from previous books. You never know when a character will remain central or if it is about to vanish - I love lack of predictability.

That said, they do tend to ramble on a bit, and take a long time getting to the point. I can't really sense much direction, and there is rarely any tension or build-up. I never really care enough about any character like you do in books that you really enjoy

In summary, they are a fun read with a great epic fantasy feel, and are chunky so they while away many hours, but I wouldn't call them classics by any stretch.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I've only read the first book and am waiting for the rest of them to make it to Israel.

I really liked to opening book though, I've read it nonstop during my vacation. It does have an eerie resemblance to dominions, I could almost believe to the author actually played dominions.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I think they're amongst the best fantasy out there...

Keeping a track of who everyone is, particularly when you read them as they come out and have 18-month-long gaps between each one is a bit of a struggle. Furthermore the pacing of the books can be weak, and the narrative structure shaky, so it's easier to get lost about what's going on than many.

I think they're generally good because the world Erikson and Ian Esslemont (who has only just started getting published) have created is extremely rich. I like them also for the sense that for all that's going on, the characters seem very small, flawed cogs in a huge machine, rather than the world-striding, magic-sword-wielding, square-jawed, dragon-slaying, dark-lord-vanquishing, naive, over-righteous pricks that normally populate fantasy.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I somehow never touched it. I will have to find and give it a try. But I will be really suprised if it tops my favourite fantasy - Chronicles of Amber.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

While it has its flaws, this series has been about the only fantasy I've read after many years away from the genre.

I started reading it based on a description in an earlier thread in this forum on what books dominions players liked.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I like them a lot. I'm not sure why, since there are things I don't like in the books. The inflation of power and increasing number of ascendants annoy me, but I like the epic feel of Karsa Orlong and others.

I also dislike fantasy dragons, including the dominions dragons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif . Dragons tend to be horribly unimaginative. Proud and noble!!! What a bunch of crap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif THey are not even monsters enough to stay monsters. Instead every author (obviously including me) makes them human, just better, nobler and more beautifully winged than petty humans (or elves). To me, dragons symbolize everything that is bad fantasy. Ten times more then elves, dwarves and orcs.

Oops http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif . Sorry.

Back on track: I'm strangely fond of the books and it is currently the only book series of which I anticipate new releases.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I enjoy MBotF most when I remember that Steven Erikson is a painter, and just enjoy the scenes he's painting (Gruntle as a rock in a tavern, Trull when Rhulad <cough, cough, cough>). That helps me see why the boring parts exist, and then the scope and excitement of the plotty parts gets me through the rest. Plus, I love the characters.

I read the first chapter of Return of the Crimson Guard recently. Looks like it will be a great book. Also looking forward to Toll the Hounds.

I think I enjoy the first Chronicles of Amber and Lord of Light about as much as Memories of Ice, but in a very different way.

-Max

P.S. IMHO, one of the major ideas behind the series is, "What if immortality was possible?" Not just the ascendants, but the ghosts and spirits and all these things that JUST DON'T DIE, from Kettle to Kuru Qan to Baeroth Gild to everybody in Hood's realm. What if everybody lived forever unless big magic destroyed them?

P.P.S. One of my favorite "scenes" is when the Bridgeburner remnants are pinned down by a K'ell Hunter in Coral and Tool breaks through the wall in style and annihilates the Hunter in two seconds. I can just imagine them boggling.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

If you like the small cog feel, Glen Cook did that pretty well in a number of his books, some more than others.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Well in some conceptualizations, the purpose of taking a human form, is not some sort of utility (like better spellcasting), but rather so that they can more easily meddle in and manipulate the affairs of man. And depending on their moral alignment, they are either providing covert aid, or really just trying to mess with the silly little monkeys in between eating entire villages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif I do like the view of dragons as semi-divine beings, similar to the Norse gods in temperament and power. But then, all of the pretenders in Dominions have that sort of flavor, to me. <3


But I haven't read these books, reminds me of all of my friends talking excitedly about Robert Jordan, back in the day..... They still like him, even the ones who still read the books, and admit that he has only one motive - to sell more books. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Huh?

From what I've "seen", most of the time dragons are cunning little selfish lazy bastards (:P).
Which is why the generic hero goes an slays them.

Not that I have any fondness for dragons.

I'm in the process of reading those right now. (I got the gigantic book.)


I think A Song of Ice and Fire, has to be the best strategy-fantasy book I've read http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Agrajag:

I was reading Chronicles as ebook in Polish, now I got English version, also that all-in-one version http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It is waiting for my return from China. Good for autumng and winter evenings.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

It wouldn't happen so often if monkey PD weren't so awful.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

-Max

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I really like these books too. His strong point is the way he describes giant battles, the detail is better than any other author I've read. I particularly enjoyed the book with the pannion seer. That was creepy stuff.

On dragons
 

Kristoffer: that's your problem right there!

Dragons aren't meant to be "proud and noble", atleast in human terms. They aren't human! Dragons are like an earthquake, a forest fire, or a hurricane. They're a natural disaster, an elemental force of nature that's become A: intelligent (and vengeful), B: greedy (and ambitious), and C: very, very patient. They aren't necessarily evil-but that's like saying the 'Walking Dude' from Stephen King's 'The Stand' wasn't necessarily evil.

Dragons should be terrible, awesome, beautiful, and deadly. Some-Chinese dragons for instance-can be wise and kindly, but that makes them no less fierce-infact, they're about as close to the gods themselves as you can get.

They also should be protean. As in, they shouldn't be confined to any one shape. Dragons are winged, or have no wings, they can have horns and scales, and sometimes beards. Some of them have many limbs-and opposable thumbs, and many heads, while others are just serpents. Their very blood can be anathema to everything it touches, or the very key to immortality.

Dragons should be as varied as the clouds in the sky, and as unpredictable as the ocean.

To the medieval mind, a dragon was just the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen-and the medieval mind had a lot of bad to dwell on.
Dragons were worse than the plague, worse than the inquisition, worse than the king, worse than getting drafted, worse than the Devil himself. Yes, they had plenty of tales about knights slaying dragons, but that was because they were afraid, and the knights were all they had. Knights usually didn't fare too well, anyhow, unless they had God in their corner.

Even Beowulf-all around mightiest of men, who'd already proven his worth against Grendel and his mother-met his end at the hands of a dragon.

Down with the Disney version! Down with Anne McCaffrey!! Down with Dragontales!!!

Bring back real dragons! Bring them to Dominions! I'm sorry but, as nice as the dragons we have are, in the game, they don't quite terrify me. And Dominions is the one game where they absolutely should.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

100% agree. I do have a problem though keeping track of who is who in terms of visualizing the characters and recalling their backgrounds, especially when it comes to keeping all the grunts straight like the Bonehunter squads.

I do wish the magic was a little more subtle - it does feel that magic is so powerful that any Erikson character has the means to survive any situation, no matter how dire. Whether Erikson lets them survive is another matter, but he is far more generous than George Martin.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Even George RR Martin admits that George RR Martin goes through his characters like extras in a John Woo movie.

Re: On dragons
 

I personally like a malazan tale of the fallen very much.. I start with book 1.. then when 2 got out book 1 and 2.. etc etc.. and ebtween the last and the one for that I must have read them another 2 times..

Same for a Song of Fire and Ice.. those 2 are my most favorite series, along with Wheel of Time (I don't mind the way it's written) and the earlier books of Feist (magician just ROX)

KO you get annoyed by the increasing number of ascendents? Seems like a lot of pplz keep getting killed.. and most decks where already there you should know how much you could expect.. only thing I think is strange that the shapeshifters who all seem incredibly aggresive etc and there seemed to be a lot on the path of hands where not so generally known (they should've been rampaging whole continents right?) but I figure they killed each other on the way to the end and then.. well we read that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: On dragons
 

It would be interesting, if there was something like 'tawneer' the spirit of the chosen.

The question of nation hood really is separate from ascension. It would be interesting if there were a path to god hood that did not require nation building...

God games = )

Re: On dragons
 

I personally like dragons.

My dragons were vindictive, nasty and downright evil. I based there personility on a cat and they viewed humans (and most other humaniod races) as mice to be tormented before biting there heads off.

A red dragon captured an adventurer once in one of my campaigns, he ended up sliting his own throat after 2 months captivity.

I have such fond memories of dragons... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: On dragons
 

Yes GRRM is pretty deadly. I haven't read the latest one yet. I'm waiting for the next so I can read them both together.

But I think his deadliness has become a bit of a weakness.

At first I loved that the evil characters seemed to have some actual character and understandable motivations and that the good guys often seemed to lose. People you liked actually died! But after 3000 odd pages it began to dawn on me that all I was reading was characters I like doing badly and getting killed. Evil is always much smarter and always gets the girls/power. While good is always portrayed as stupid or naive and gets dumped on repeatedly. It's like watching a soap opera http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

I think Erikson's novels are better. I like the battles a lot, although they are all too deadly and dramatic. And as always cavalry keep charging unbroken infantry and win. Bleh! But I think he has a better balance between the good guys and the bad. You get the feeling there might be a happy outcome for at least some people you like. But he can still be ruthless at times.

I like Jordan's books too. Terribly flawed what with endless tugging of braids, zero character development and hardly anything really bad happening to the good guys. But after 11 books you really like the good guys so thats OK.

Magician was a great book with the trilogy being OK, and I liked the Daughter of Empire ones too.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Initially (in GotM) it wasn't clear that Malazan dragons were any different from regular fantasy dragons: a species of giant magical reptiles that fly and hang out with humans sometimes. Since then it's become rather clear that dragons like Silannah are something unusual, and it is in fact questionable whether dragons are a species at all (in the biological sense) or some kind of magical emanation from the warrens. There's definitely some weird stuff going on.

-Max

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

It seems like a lot of people here like the Malazan series (that is what it's called, right?), so I might have to see if I can get them at the library. I need something to read, anyways, while I wait for some of the books I want to be un-checked-out.

On A Song and Ice of Fire, I love it. It's a great series, I think, though I've only read the first two books (I can't seem to find the third). On the Wheel of Time series, I used to like it, but reading the books practically back-to-back, I noticed how badly thought out some of Jordan's world really was. That, combined with the predictability and stereotypicality of nearly every minor character and quite a few of the major characters, turned me off. Plus, after ~10 books (at some point I just gave up and stopped), I was beginning to hate, not love, the characters.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Well, individual dragons-and individual authors-notwithstanding, Dragons-as in their role in the collective subconscious-have really been wussified, even when it's clear that this wasn't the intention. I think people have become so enamored of dragons as representatives of magic and fairy tales, that they simply refuse to view them as anything other than diplomats from wonderland. Sure, some of them retain their power, intelligence, etc. but very little of the sheer cataclysmic horror that a dragon should invoke. I mean, these were the Cloverfields of their time. They wreaked towns, ate virgins, poisoned wells, battled the gods, consorted with-and often were-the Devil, and sooner or later, they were going to destroy the Earth ala Revelations.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Not a fan of Mercedes Lackey?

While her quality varies from series to series (Valdemar series is highly predictable... look, a magic horse! Guess who's joining up with them! And you can often tell within two paragraphs of meeting who's going to be the love interest) she has a few interesting ones to her name.

Namely, the Halfblood series starting with Elvenbane, and my favorite standalone novel by her, Firebird. Firebird isn't relevenant to this discussion, but the Halfblood puts an interesting twist on the whole fantasy racial sterotypes since Tolkein, what with evil elves enslaving all of humanity and the main character being raised by dragons as a pet rather than out of some draconic nobility. And the the only reason dragons are involved in the world's affairs is the simple fact they like to meddle, not any ambition, vengeance, or purpose.

That novel is rather interesting for having a draconic culture developed, rather than a stereotype.

There is of course, still a place for fearsome monstrous or noble dragons, just as long as they're not typecast the same way in 80% of all books they appear in.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I bought House of Chains in an airport once. It was more of a chore to read than enjoyable, and I've avoided anything written by him since.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

I fully agree with you Honeybadger.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

on the topic of cliche fantasy (such as dragons)

JRPG's made airships totally cliche, but I still really like airships, and wish there was a game (even a roguelike) built around them. In fact, I kind of have a concept for an airship based fantasy in my head; it is kind of like the setting from Time of Defiance, but in a fantasy period. There are no races, only 'societies' (I've always thought races were not only cliche, but superfluous).

I'd go in more depth, but I don't want to hijack the thread, bore people, or have my material taken http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

making this game (as a roguelike) is one of my life goals http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
going into outer space is the other. I actually think both are attainable.

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Thanks Kristoffer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Does that mean you'll consider reassessing the role and image of dragons in the game?

I don't want to be harsh, I just find what's been done so far to be uninspiredly reminiscent of D&D, which is very jarring to encounter in Dominions.

Re: On dragons
 

Yes, I would have to agree. Though they may be overused and cliche, dragons should be uber powerful, and they are not, in this game. Smaug the Golden, and Ancalagon the Black, those are the dragons of my fantasy. Even George RR Martins' dragons would be more powerful than the ones we currently have. I think that if you are going to upgrade any pretenders, Dragons should be the first.

Re: On dragons
 

I wouldn't say so much in terms of an upgrade in sheer unsubtle power, as a shift in the general "design" of dragons. The dragons in the game aren't extremely weak, they're just somewhat bland. They don't necessarily need more hit points-we must keep balance in mind-they just could use a bigger dose of character and chaos.

Dragons, as I mentioned, are protean. They should be somewhat chaotic in terms of their capabilities and appearance. Creating a dragon should be viewed in the same terms as creating a modern piece of military hardware. Is it a tank? a battleship? a submarine? a jet fighter? It's important that it not be just the same "big flying lizard with wings that breathes fire". It may not have wings, and it may not breathe fire. Once you've got it's physical abilities down, then consider the mind. The dragon will have goals, and may be highly intelligent, or highly stupid, but should possess a personality. Finally, consider it's reputation-remember, a dragon is a natural disaster waiting to happen, and it can wait a long, long time, and because of that, people are going to fear it, and do their best to learn about it, and tell stories about it, so a good dragon is going to have a lot of background to it-ofcourse, not everything is going to be known, such is the nature of the beast.

Personally, I'd really like to see dragons in the game tied directly to the environment and forces in nature-as opposed to the elements, which are already well represented.

Earthquake dragons, wildfire dragons, flood dragons, typhoon dragons, lightning dragons, volcanic dragons, sandstorm dragons, plague dragons, and avalanche dragons would all be interesting and different to see in the game.

Now that I think about it-to tie in the human shapeshifting ability they currently have, perhaps each of these types of dragons would be-drawing somewhat from Chinese myth-divine representatives in charge of governing and regulating their respective disaster, capable of taking on humanoid form to fulfill their beurocratic duties, with the dragon form itself being as much a physical embodiment of the power and station they directly control. In this way, again the dragon wouldn't *necessarily* be evil, but would also be more capable of human personality, and all the nuances of evil and danger contained therein-and it allows the dragon "form" itself to become that much more elaborate, because it's not anything that was evolved to suit the demands of Nature, it's instead an avatar of Nature at her deadliest. Our imaginations, in this way, are allowed to run wild.

Re: On dragons
 

Incidentally, for those of you in the UK who are fans of Steven Erikson, he's doing a tour with readings and Q&As across the country around the end of June - early July. I think they might all be in Waterstones branches if you check there.

* * *

Dragons have never been completely uber. Bear in mind an old-age Beowulf with support from one minion polished off a dragon, as did St. George on his lonesome. Dragons could tear up a village with untrained pitchfork-wielding peasants easily enough, but could be readily defeated by a human hero with plenty of resolve. Even in fantasy starting at Tolkein, dragons (or balrogs) were very powerful but defeatable by sometimes even modest heroes. Smaug only ran riot so much because he'd eaten so many jewels for armour, and even then carelessly forgetting to cover one of his major organs. (With that sort of tactical aptitude, he'd be mincemeat playing Dominions.)

Re: On dragons
 

would this work as a way to bring power back to dragons? make the ones who we can currently use as pretenders as summons and add some skills that differ to the different dragon types, and make the ones we can use as pretenders cost more points, but be 5 times better in terms of magic, stats, and special abilities,

Re: On dragons
 

If they cost more points they will have less magic, as magic costs points.

Re: On dragons
 

Dragons are the only pretenders that have to pay for magic they can't use. All the other monster type pretenders have full access to their paths in battle, Dragons either have to start as a vulnerable human and shift or not have full use of the magic they paid for. Including, I'd assume, the side benefits of high paths: attack bonus and the like.

On the other hand it's a neat ability and it distinguishes them. And does have the advantage of full slots for ritual casting and forging.

Overall, it's a disadvantage. Maybe instead of losing 2 levels, they could lose 1 in dragon form and gain one in human from the actual purchased value?

Re: On dragons
 

Is there a method, by the way, for determining how much pretender chassises pay for their starting magic paths? It's always cheaper to buy S10E3 for an Oracle than a Cyclops, for instance, and so it's not clear how much the Oracle's starting S3 actually "costs."

-Max

Re: On dragons
 

Note that this is currently moddable with the #magicboost command.

-Max

Re: On dragons
 

I don't think dragons should be ultra ultra uber, either, but the most powerful of them should definitely be some of the most powerful units in the game.

A determined human can kill anything-we've defeated cave bears, Hitler, polio, neanderthals, the rocky mountain locust, and dying before we're 30...and dragons should have vulnerabilities, but they should be vulnerable like a tank or a jet fighter is vulnerable.

Kristoffer, considering that dragons love treasure so much, would there be a way that, through empowerment, they could automatically shapechange? Like say a red dragon that, once it's been empowered to fire 6, for instance, turns into a stronger unit? That way, instead of over time, they could become stronger at a significant cost of gems.

Re: Malazon
 

While thier length is intimidating, I can honestly say these are the best epic fantasy books I have ever read. Typically people praise them for their grittiness, and fantasy-realism (if that even makes sense) but I rather find that they are exceptional in the way they flow and the characterizations.

No one who enjoys adventure can say that the Chain of Dogs wasn't just awesome and heartrending at the same time. the siege of Capustan was shocking but so well portrayed it really seemed like you were there, and all hope was lost.

My one complaint is an echo of what was stated earlier, that everyone and their brother is immortal, and the power balance is a bit screwy. Karsa is one tough mother, sure, but if he can be captured by humans and for a short time enslaved, then I'm not buying that he can also take down gods. Some uber characters are justified in terms of the story, like Anomander Rake, but not all of them. Plus the fact that every tribe and group of people skulking around in a wasteland has their own super powerful gods and an entire race of people (the Wickans) have the potential for immortality. SPOILERS: Chain of Dogs would have meant even more if Coltaine actually died, like, for real. It was moving that he took up so many ravens or whatnot to carry his soul, but that was just unnecessary.

Still, from a lyrical standpoint, nothing compares. And unlike other "epic" fantasy writers, I think Erikson is actually going to finish what he started, and in a timely manner.

Re: Malazon
 

Hmmm. What does it mean to die "for real" in the Malazan universe? To put it another way, if I believe in an afterlife, does that mean that I can't find joy and sorrow when a man gives his life for his friends?

I think the Wickans are emphatically NOT exceptional in the Malazan universe. Hood is exceptional in that he actually collects dead souls and does something with them, which I think is quite decent of him.

-Max

Re: Malazon
 

I guess when I say die "for real" what I mean is being taken out of the tapestry of history, and even if your soul lives on elsewhere, being unable to affect events in the mortal world. By that standard Coltaine is actually one of the least offensive, as while he was "reborn", it was as a child and it will take many years for him to grow and become relevant again.

Compare to: Paran, Silverfox, Tool, The Bridgeburners (in spirit form), the Malazan historian (can't spell his name, etc. who die and yet immediately come back and are able to impact events.

Re: Malazon
 

I agree that Coltaine's death was more "real" (less D&D-ish) than the others you name. The fate of a certain Bridgeburner in Reaper's Gale was very... perplexing to me. I don't really understand the metaphysics of death and immortality in the Malazan universe but I hope Erikson is going somewhere interesting with it. Erikson has explicitly said that immortality is one of the ideas that motivated his stories in the first place: what if larger-than-life personalities didn't die but kept turning up again and again in human history? What if Alexander the Great and Napoleon and Hammurabi and Aristotle and Mohammed were all STILL ALIVE? I don't think it's merely a matter of hating to kill off characters.

Note that Duiker is still radically transformed by his experience, crippled even. Silverfox is not the same person she was before, although Nightchill still influences her. Paran is the most direct "resurrection" I can think of aside from <font color="red">[Reaper's Gale spoiler]</font>, whose resurrection I don't understand at all yet. And [other RG spoiler] too, actually.

-Max

<font color="red">Edited for spoiler</font>

P.S. Wait a second, Tool? Are you sure you don't mean Toc? If Tool died just because Silverfox released him as First Sword that would just be depressing.

Re: Malazon
 

Oh heck, I didn't even consider Toc Younger. That's a good example!

When I say Tool I mean how he basically got hammered by the Seguleh but then was "resurrected" as a tribesman.

Re: Malazon
 

That was just a classic "saved-in-the-nick-of-time-by-your-sister" event, though. Hardly a resurrection.

I do not think we have seen the last of Toc. K'rul predicted two future meetings with Kilava, one of hardly any consequence (which we saw in RG), and one more... momentous. It's possible of course that K'rul read the future wrongly. (Either way, I don't think he'll reappear before the end of MBotF.)

-Max

Re: Malazon
 

Great series, on the House of Chains book right now. I like the changing/emerging character of Karsa Orlong.

This is a series where I need to take a break after each to.. soak in the gory and glorious details.

Re: Malazon
 

I think this is perhaps the best example of a series that begs to be re-read as you need to know the story before you can really understand everything you are reading. I am still working my way through it (on Reaper's Gale) and it is definitely starting to get interesting, but I look forward to the second run through.

Re: MalazAn (seriously, who put the O in there?)
 

Best fantasy series I've ever read by a long, long way. I picked up Gardens of the Moon just before a flight to Turkey, hadn't heard anything about it or Erikson just knew I needed a book for the holiday.

Whilst playing the Dominions demo I couldn't help notice how similar in feel the game was to Erikson's series, if the pretenders weren't actually linked to any set nation and could pick and choose as the game went on then it would pretty much be identical in a way.

Re: MalazAn (seriously, who put the O in there?)
 

Hmm. Including the possibility of pretenders stupidly getting killed by mortals.

-Max

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen
 

Necroing this thread just to say - I finally finished Dust of Dreams (book 9) after the second attempt. I am not sure why the first attempt stuttered to a halt - i think i just got lost with all the tribesman and too many names. Anyway, on the 2nd go around, I could hardly put the thing down.

If anyone else has read this series, I found this thread that could be helpful, though probably best to save until you have read through once already: Malazan re-read

Re: OT: Malazan Book of the Fallen