The Crippled God discussion

At the same time, fantasy works are often critized for being 'a world in a bubble'; a clean start and end that remind the world is merely fictional, that nothing went on there before and after the story.

Erikson has compared Malazan in interviews to reading several chapters from the middle of real world history. It was done intentionally to have this sort of open-endedness about it.

Re the cynicism, you are expected to question whether it's validated by events. Also note, many of these inner thoughts contradict one another's. We don't always have the pleasure of seeing these characters with differing viewpoints enounter one another and argue it out, but could well imagine it.

The story of the Crippled God and his main opposition (Tavore and the Bridgeburners) at least is completed. Some of the other stories find resolution in books by Ian Esselmont that take place within the same timeline, but those are really optional to read. Erikson anticipates writing an additional trilogy about Karsa Orlong, but it isn't likely to be as all-encompassing as this central series. It's really intended to stand on its own, just as it is.

I have to admit, I felt the Forkrul Assail came out of left field as the primary villain. There was hint of them returning at some point but I didn't foresee them in that position. I also think the flip for the Crippled God wasn't foreshadowed enough and came a little too easily. I didn't mind that a flip happened, I just wish it had been led up to better.

I think Fiddler's last scene worked out fine. It's as close to a happily-ever-after as we should expect, after everything Erikson told (and told) us about life. There can be no neat, clean endings without betraying everything this series had to say.

Definitely it's possible to overburden a story with too many inner thoughts, and it threatened the pace a few times here. But I also thought it made the characters seem much more self-aware, not just actors being pushed about on a stage. It was another level beyond just supplying motivation, to examine the thought process that led to embracing those motives.

I like a fantasy series that strives to bring depth and tries to rise above mere action set pieces and the quest trope.

Stephen R. Donaldson, another fantasy author, has written an excellent article about fantasy as literature and much of it is devoted to heralding the Malazan series as an example and indirectly speaks to how it ends: http://www.nyrsf.com/2015/03/fantasy-...

"Malazan tells one story, but it also launches many others—and partially continues even more. Indeed, he thumbs his nose at one of our most comforting assumptions about the nature of story: that a story has a beginning, middle, and end, complete in themselves. In this respect, Erikson’s opus is like life: its backstory is just as important and complex as its present, and its future possibilities are just as bewildering."

i love the fact that the books are just a snapshot of an ongoing story. Just because the books started doesn't mean that the whole universe just started and just because the book ended doesn't mean the universe ended.

What i hated near the end was the fact that a LOT of the characters ended up being "philosophers" (please note the quotes). I mean just wow, a lot of them can think and retrospect that deeply.

I once felt very much the same; that any story should have a logical arc to it with a conclusive ending (e.g. the first Mistborn trilogy by Branden Sanderson). After seeing that kind of ending many times, however, I began to hear a "false note" as I realized life isn't really like that. The novelist is too clearly manipulating events in order to achieve that clean closure. If you begin to feel this way, then it is as if you begin to see the secret of how a magic act is performed, so that it doesn't feel like magic anymore. After the sense of magic was gone from my reading, I became more open to open-ended stories.

I've sampled enough Erikson that I doubt I'll read more by him (I feel there are far too many authors to spend more than ten enormous books' time with just one), but not because of the ending he delivered.